The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 47 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Adolescent impatience decreases with increased frontostriatal connectivity
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Compared with children and adults, teens and young adults often exhibit greater impulsivity and corresponding increases in emergency room visits, accidents from drug or alcohol use, and increased mortality risk. However, it remains poorly understood how increased impulsivity during adolescence may be explained in terms of brain and cognitive development. We focused on impatience, a central component of impulsiveness. We relate impatient behavior on a decision-making task to changes in connectivity within the brain’s frontostriatal circuitry. Our results suggest that relative future orientation, not sensitivity to immediate rewards, determines adolescent impatience. These findings may help to design interventions to prevent the detrimental effects of adolescent impulsiveness and serve as a template for understanding neurodevelopmental disorders.
Checked 2026-10-07 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a cross-sectional multimodal MRI study of 50 participants aged 8–25, adolescents were more impatient on an intertemporal choice task and reported less future orientation, but not more present hedonism, than young adults. Stronger right dorsolateral prefrontal–medial striatal structural connectivity was associated with greater negative functional coupling during larger-later choices and lower discount rates, suggesting increased control and future-oriented thought drive age-related reductions in impatience.
Key findings
- Discount rates declined with age across 8–25 y (linear: r = 0.46, P < 0.001; asymptotic: r = 0.48, P < 0.001), best described by an asymptotic trajectory with accelerated decline in early adolescence. Future orientation increased with age (linear: r = 0.42, P < 0.005; asymptotic: r = 0.44, P < 0.004), while present hedonism showed no age-related change (all P > 0.45). Future orientation correlated with more patient choices (r = −0.42, P < 0.005); present hedonism did not (r = 0.22, P = 0.17), though it did when controlling for age (r = 0.29, P < 0.05).
- Right medial striatum–right dlPFC tract strength was negatively correlated with log k (r = −0.47, P < 0.001); similar trends were found for right vlPFC (r = −0.48, P = 0.007) and left vlPFC (r = −0.37, P = 0.049). Amygdala tract strength was not initially associated with discounting (r = 0.26, P < 0.11) but was positively correlated with discount rates when controlling for age (r = 0.65, P < 0.001).
- Right dlPFC showed increased negative coupling with medial striatum during decision versus baseline (t(47) = −7.321, P < 0.001), and this negative coupling was greater for larger-later versus smaller-sooner choices (t(47) = 6.63, P < 0.001). The functional connectivity difference correlated with structural connectivity (r = 0.42, P < 0.004) and discount rates (r = 0.41, P < 0.005). A serial mediation model supported an indirect path from age through structural and functional connectivity with right dlPFC to discounting (95% CI 0.05, 0.22).
- Specificity analyses: stop-signal reaction time decreased with age (linear: r = 0.55, P < 0.001; asymptotic: r = 0.58, P < 0.001), was not related to delay discounting (r = 0.25, P = 0.23), and correlated with right IFG–striatum tract strength (r = −0.31, P = 0.045) but not right dlPFC–striatum structural or functional connectivity (r = −0.15, P = 0.33; r = 0.06, P = 0.66).
Methods
- Fifty participants (26 females), ages 8–25 y (M = 16.76, SD = 4.55), completed a delay-discounting task with 130 intertemporal choices in and outside the scanner, the Zimbardo Time Perspective Index (present hedonism and future orientation), a stop-signal task, Raven Standard Progressive Matrices, and pubertal status on a subset.
- DTI probabilistic tractography used striatal seed masks and 10 a priori target regions; striatal voxels were classified by highest connection probability, and tract strength was correlated with log k. fMRI during delay discounting was analyzed with PPI using functionally defined right dlPFC/right vlPFC ROIs and structurally defined striatal segments.
- Analyses used robust linear regressions testing linear, adolescent-peak, and asymptotic age trends; Bayesian model comparison; a Bonferroni-corrected threshold of P < 4.545 × 10⁻³ for 11 tracts; and serial mediation via Hayes’ PROCESS.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors found no support for immediate-reward sensitivity driving adolescent impatience and note this may be due to the low affective content of the stimuli; they suggest social or emotional contexts may reveal reward-sensitivity effects.
- Stated: probabilistic tractography and PPI cannot resolve the direction of connectivity, so the top-down control interpretation needs further testing, for example with dynamic causal modeling. Impulsivity is multidimensional, and intertemporal choice taps mainly impatience; more tasks and a wider age range are needed.
- Evident from the text: the cross-sectional design and mediation analysis cannot establish causal developmental direction; the modest sample (n = 50) and pubertal data available only in a subset further limit power and generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 31 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 15 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that those participants who showed increased future orientation also made more patient choices in the intertemporal choice task ( r = -0.42, P < 0.005; Fig. 1 E ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that there was a significant relationship between individual differences in present hedonism and discounting when controlling for age ( r = 0.29, P < 0.05).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report that adolescents were more impatient on an intertemporal choice task”
- Also stated in: § Results · p. 4 · plain
“there was a decline in impatience across adolescence among our subjects.”
- Also stated in: § Results · p. 3 · hedged
“Discount rates estimated from the delay-discounting task were smaller with age across adolescence.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
- Also stated in: § Results · p. 4 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the right medial striatum region overlapped with the striatal segment that we identified in the structural analyses to be connected with the dlPFC.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bayesian model comparisons indicated that an asymptotic developmental trajectory with an accelerated decline in impulsive choices in early adolescence provided the best description of changes in discount rates with age (Table S1).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not find any significant responses for the opposite (SS -LL) contrast.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the difference in dlPFC -striatal functional connectivity between LL and SS trials correlated with structural connectivity ( r = 0.42, P < 0.004; Fig. 4 E ), and discount rates ( r = 0.41, P < 0.005; Fig. 4 F ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“More importantly, the negative coupling between the right dlPFC and the medial striatum was greater for choices of LL versus SS rewards [ t (47) = 6.63, P < 0.001; Fig. 4 D ].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a post hoc ANOVA ROI analysis, which indicated that there was an overall reduction of striatal activity with age ( F = 6.26, P < 0.015).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These analyses revealed that the right dlPFC, but not the right vlPFC, showed a significant change in connectivity with the medial striatum during the decision period versus baseline [ t (47) = -7.321, P < 0.001, and t (47) = -0.92, P = 0.83, respectively].”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a linear age-related increase best described the data for all of the tracts except for the right vlPFC, which was best fit by the asymptotic trend.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous findings, we found that SSRT decreased with age (linear: r = 0.55, P < 0.001; asymptotic: r = 0.58, P < 0.001; Fig. S2).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“showed age-related changes in right medial striatum (MNI: 12, 2, 8), left medial striatum (MNI: -13, 17, 8), and left temporoparietal junction (MNI: -55, -42, 23; Fig. 4 B ).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“tract strength values are nonnormally distributed, so nonparametric correlations are most appropriate”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Numerous studies have shown that rates of delay discounting measured in these tasks decline with age”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Impulsivity can be broken down into at least three independent components: acting without thinking, impatience, and sensation/novelty seeking (6, 8, 9).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“( ii ) increased activity in the brain ' s executive control network (30).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Luo et al. (23) showed that striatal activity is greater when participants are presented with immediate rewards versus preference-matched delayed rewards.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luo et al. (23)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“more patient behavior may result from control processes that bias attention away from immediate rewards and/or emphasize the importance of future goals (24, 25).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“individual differences in future orientation are associated with more patient choices (1, 21, 26).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Neuroimaging studies have consistently shown that delay discounting recruits corticostriatal circuitry (19).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“more impatient behavior can result from oversensitivity to immediate rewards (21).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“people are more impatient when an immediate option is present compared with when both options are in the future (22).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Control is believed to be specifically necessary for consideration of prospective future outcomes (29)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“we recently showed that frontostriatal tracts predicted decreased delay discounting, whereas subcorticostriatal tracts predicted increased delay discounting in adults (21).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Together, these results are consistent with a recent large-scale study on adolescent discounting (49), which showed that, although the adolescents valued the same objective monetary rewards more than adults, this did not explain their increased impatient behavior on the intertemporal choice task.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The DICE values obtained for all striatal segments were high and satisfactory (between 0.32 and 0.59), except for the supplementary motor area (SMA) and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) (DICE < 0.05; Table S2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“striatal circuits are divided into two networks: a ventral valuation network that is involved in representing the incentive value of the different options, and a dorsal control network that is involved in maintaining future goals and inhibiting prepotent responses (18, 24).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our results suggest that relative future orientation, not sensitivity to immediate rewards, determines adolescent impatience.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, the mediation analysis supports the hypotheses that an increase in dlPFC -medial striatum tract integrity with age leads to increased negative functional coupling between dlPFC and the medial striatum during LL versus SS choices, which finally leads to less impulsive decision making.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · p. 7 · hedged
“That is, our data suggest that there is an increase in white matter connectivity strength with age, which in turn allows for increased efficiency in the inhibitory interaction between right dlPFC and striatum, potentially underlying the observed reduction of impatience with age.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The serial mediation model's causal ordering from age through structural connectivity and functional connectivity to discounting is valid.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · p. 7 · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Neurodevelopmental models hypothesize that the different rates of maturation of the valuation and control networks account for increased impulsivity in adolescence. These models propose that there is a relatively early developing valuation system during adolescence, followed by a more slowly maturing cognitive control system (32, 33).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We collected data on pubertal status on a subset of our participants, but these did not reveal any significant relations to task behavior or neural measures (see SI Materials and Methods for more details).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no correlation between age and number of interpolated volumes ( r = 0.02, P = 0.89; Fig. S3)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That is, our specificity analyses suggest that the right dlPFC tract is associated with goal-oriented valuation, whereas the IFG tract is involved in inhibiting prepotent responses (based on external cues).”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In line with the interactive specialization account of neurodevelopment (69), this suggests that there may be an age-related increase in the specificity of the different striatal tracts.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, we found that there were also no correlations between IQ and log k ( r = 23, P = 0.46).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Given the known problems of motion for connectivity analyses (90), we used ArtRepair software to correct for excessive movement (91).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90] Power JD, Barnes KA, Snyder AZ, Schlaggar BL, Petersen SE (2012) Spurious but systematic correlations in functional connectivity MRI networks arise from subject motion. Neuroimage 59(3):2142 -2154. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This organizational structure allows for at least a tripartite functional division and introduces a role for context-dependent modulation of the more basic inhibitory and affect-related processes.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, these analyses suggest that the structural development of the right dlPFC striatal tract is specifically related to the processes involved in delay discounting (impatience) but not motor inhibition.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual inspection ensured that tractography maps were successful and acceptable for further analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding the inverse temperature function as a covariate of no interest to our regression models did not change any of the reported results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, both probabilistic tractography and PPI are in principle unable to resolve the direction of connectivity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the participants had to be rejected (threshold for movement was 1 voxel/TR).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we established that there was no relationship between age and IQ ( r = 0.16, P = 0.72).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No more than eight (median, 0; mean, 1.1) of the volumes were interpolated within any subject.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dual-fiber models account for crossing fibers and thus yield more reliable results compared with single-fiber models.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The dorsolateral striatum predominantly connected to sensorimotor-related regions, the ventromedial part collects visceralrelated afferents, and striatal areas lying between these extremes receive higher order ' associational ' information.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To take into account the effect of possible outliers, all regressions with the discount rate were robust [using the robustbase package in R (76)].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76] Todorov V, Filzmoser P (2009) An object-oriented framework for robust multivariate analysis. J Stat Softw 32(3):1 -47. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Choices follow a hyperbolic discount function.
“assuming a hyperbolic discount function”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The choice function assumes each individual chooses the option with the highest subjective value with highest probability.
“The choice function assumed that each individual will choose the option with the highest subjective value (which in many cases could be SS choice) with highest probability.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The inverse temperature parameter represents response noise.
“The inverse temperature is a free parameter in the choice model that represents response noise.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Developmental changes in structural connectivity indicate the functional effectiveness of axonal connections.
“it can be assumed that developmental changes in structural connectivity provide information about the functional effectiveness of axonal connections.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Age-related differences observed cross-sectionally in connectivity and behavior reflect developmental change over adolescence.
“Process model linking age related differences in brain structure, function, and behavior.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The serial mediation model's causal ordering from age through structural connectivity and functional connectivity to discounting is valid.
“We generated a serial mediator model that tries to capture the relation between age and discounting with two sequential mediators: structural and functional connectivity with the right dlPFC (Fig. 5).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“choices to delay gratification in the decision task were associated with greater self-reported future orientation and increased engagement of frontoparietal control circuitry, but not with variation in self reported hedonism.”
From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as van den Bos et al., 2015
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recent connectivity analyses have demonstrated that increases in control behaviors across adolescence are associated with an increase in connectivity between striatal and prefrontal regions (van den Bos et al., 2015, van Duijvenvoorde et al., 2015a, Vink et al., 2014).”
From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as van den Bos et al., 2015
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“improvements in frontostriatal connectivity mediated the link between age and willingness to wait for a larger reward.”
From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as van den Bos et al., 2015
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentt(47) = -0.92reported p = .83 · recomputed p = .362
“t (47) = -0.92, p = .83”
The paper states a correction for multiple tests
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results · p. 5
“Similar trends were found for the right ( r = -0.48, P = 0.007) and left ( r = -0.37, P = 0.049) vlPFC.”
§ Results · p. 5
“| Left | 0.10 | - 0.48** | - 0.13 | | Right | - 0.47*** | - 0.37* | - 0.18 |”
Citations
Cites
(2013) · Cited by 44,563
Power, J. D., Barnes, K. A., Snyder, A. Z., Schlaggar, B. L., & Petersen, S. E. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.018 · Cited by 7,429
The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations
Spear, L. P. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00014-2 · Cited by 5,433
Friston, K. J., Harrison, L., & Penny, W. (2003) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/s1053-8119(03)00202-7 · Cited by 4,583
The reward circuit: linking primate anatomy and human imaging
Haber, S. N., & Knutson, B. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2009.129 · Cited by 3,718
A self‐report measure of pubertal status: Reliability, validity and initial norms
Petersen, A. C., Crockett, L., Richards, M., & Boxer, A. (1988) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/bf01537962 · Cited by 3,129
Synaptic density in human frontal cortex —Developmental changes and effects of aging
Peter R., H. (1979) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(79)90349-4 · Cited by 2,645
Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1271 · Cited by 2,520
Understanding adolescence as a period of social–affective engagement and goal flexibility
Crone, E. A., & Dahl, R. E. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3313 · Cited by 2,507
White matter integrity, fiber count, and other fallacies: The do's and don'ts of diffusion MRI
Jones, D. K., Knösche, T. R., & Turner, R. (2013) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.081 · Cited by 2,402
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation
Shulman, E. P., Smith, A. R., Silva, K., Icenogle, G., Duell, N., Chein, J., & Steinberg, L. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.010 · Cited by 867
“…between a smaller immediate reward and a larger delayed reward—are explained by variations in self-reported “present hedonism” (i.e., reward sensitivity) and “future orientation” (i.e., impulse control) and engagement of neural regions and networks during decision making (van den Bos et al., 2015).”
Beyond stereotypes of adolescent risk taking: Placing the adolescent brain in developmental context
Römer, D., Reyna, V. F., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2017) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.07.007 · Cited by 466
Pfeifer, J. H., & Berkman, E. T. (2018) · Child Development Perspectives · doi:10.1111/cdep.12279 · Cited by 354
Neural Perspectives on Cognitive Control Development during Childhood and Adolescence
Crone, E. A., & Steinbeis, N. (2017) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.003 · Cited by 287
Neural substrates of early executive function development
Fiske, A., & Holmboe, K. (2019) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2019.100866 · Cited by 307
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Bos, W., Rodriguez, C. A., Schweitzer, J. B., & McClure, S. M.
- Affiliations
- Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14197 Berlin, Germany;
- Stanford University (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-06-22
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 29
- Pages
- E3765-74
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4517266
- OpenAlex
- W2107416685
- Semantic Scholar
- 8c1c73da008d86d2fd95cb97e2a8340ebb7497c2
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 5
- FWCI
- 22.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Public Health Service (R01 091068)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH091068)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Keywords
- impatience, impulsivity, adolescence, frontostriatal connectivity, intertemporal choice, discounting, striatum, future orientation, developmental changes, structural connectivity, functional connectivity
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Child, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Impulsive Behavior, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Reward, Task Performance and Analysis, Neostriatum, Young Adult, Diffusion Tensor Imaging
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
