CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 523Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents

Open access
Somerville, Leah H., Hare, Todd, Casey, B. J.·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1162/jocn.2010.21572PMC PMC3131482
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Adolescent risk-taking is a public health issue that increases the odds of poor lifetime outcomes. One factor thought to influence adolescents' propensity for risk-taking is an enhanced sensitivity to appetitive cues, relative to an immature capacity to exert sufficient cognitive control. We tested this hypothesis by characterizing interactions among ventral striatal, dorsal striatal, and prefrontal cortical regions with varying appetitive load using fMRI scanning. Child, teen, and adult participants performed a go/no-go task with appetitive (happy faces) and neutral cues (calm faces). Impulse control to neutral cues showed linear improvement with age, whereas teens showed a nonlinear reduction in impulse control to appetitive cues. This performance decrement in teens was paralleled by enhanced activity in the ventral striatum. Prefrontal cortical recruitment correlated with overall accuracy and showed a linear response with age for no-go versus go trials. Connectivity analyses identified a ventral frontostriatal circuit including the inferior frontal gyrus and dorsal striatum during no-go versus go trials. Examining recruitment developmentally showed that teens had greater between-subject ventral-dorsal striatal coactivation relative to children and adults for happy no-go versus go trials. These findings implicate exaggerated ventral striatal representation of appetitive cues in adolescents relative to an intermediary cognitive control response. Connectivity and coactivity data suggest these systems communicate at the level of the dorsal striatum differentially across development. Biased responding in this system is one possible mechanism underlying heightened risk-taking during adolescence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn.2010.21572

Cites

96 of 96 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

29 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

8 of 49 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Circuits that integrate motivation and cognitive control, such as ventrolateral frontostriatal networks, are still less mature structurally and functionally in adolescence.

    “In contrast, brain circuitry important for integrating motivational and cognitive control processes including ventrolateral frontostriatal networks (Balleine, Delgado, & Hikosaka, 2007; Delgado, Stenger, & Fiez, 2004; Rubia, et al., 2006) remain less structurally and functionally mature during the adolescent years (Giedd, et al., 1999; Luna, et al., 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Balleine, Delgado, & Hikosaka, 2007 source
    • cites Delgado, Stenger, & Fiez, 2004

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Rubia, et al., 2006 source

      The Discussion reports greater task-related frontostriatal activation in adults than adolescents, supporting functional maturation of these networks during adolescence. Our copy does not establish that these networks integrate motivation with cognitive control, and this study does not directly measure their structural maturation; the citing sentence assigns the maturation claim to other references as well. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationcitation

    The developmental trajectories of cognitive and affective processes interact to influence the rise in risk-taking during adolescence.

    “Rather, this work suggests that the maturation trajectories of both cognitive and affective processes interact to influence the influx in risk-taking during adolescence (Casey, Getz, et al., 2008; Steinberg, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Casey, Getz, et al., 2008 source
    • cites Steinberg, 2008 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
  • Premisecitation

    Adolescents show enhanced ventral striatal activity while preparing for a rewarded trial compared with adults.

    “Relative to adults, adolescents show enhanced ventral striatal activity while preparing for a trial for which reward is at stake (Geier, et al., 2010), suggesting upregulation of motivated behavior at the level of ventral striatum in adolescents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Geier, et al., 2010 source
  • Findingown data

    The response main effect revealed regions that varied with cognitive control demands, among them the right inferior frontal gyrus.

    “The main effect of response map identified candidate regions differentially engaged as a function of cognitive control demands including the right inferior frontal gyrus (x = 32, y = 23, z = 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Signal-to-noise ratios were comparable across age groups in the ventral striatum, dorsal striatum, right inferior frontal gyrus, and whole brain.

    “SNR values did not systematically differ across age groups in any of these regions or in the whole brain (one way ANOVA (age: child, teen, adult), ROIs all p's > 0.2; whole brain p > 0.3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 13

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent studies show that providing incentives can enhance cognitive control performance.

    “A notable exception is recent work demonstrating how incentive can upregulate cognitive control abilities (Geier, et al., 2010; Hardin, et al., 2009), in which participants were rewarded for correctly suppressing an otherwise neutral behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Geier, et al., 2010 source
    • cites Hardin, et al., 2009 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Dynamic interactions between frontostriatal and ventral striatal circuitry across development are thought to mediate adolescents' reduced ability to resist approaching potential rewards.

    “Based on nonhuman and human work to date, we specifically targeted frontostriatal and ventral striatal circuitry as candidate regions whose dynamic interactions across development are thought to mediate adolescents' reduced ability to resist approaching potential rewards (Somerville & Casey, 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Somerville & Casey, 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some studies have found less prefrontal cortical recruitment with increasing age.

    “Some studies, consistent with what is presented here, have demonstrated progressively lesser recruitment of prefrontal cortical regions with increasing age (Hardin, et al., 2009; Velanova, Wheeler, & Luna, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hardin, et al., 2009 source

      The Methods (Eye Movement Recording; page unavailable) describe eye-tracking measures, and the Discussion (page unavailable) reports how incentives and emotional cues affected inhibitory performance. A search for age-related prefrontal recruitment found no passage in our copy reporting progressively less prefrontal cortical recruitment with increasing age. (LLM, conf=0.77)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Velanova, Wheeler, & Luna, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Calm faces are less positive and less arousing than happy faces.

    “Though normative data suggest that calm faces are less positive and arousing than happy faces (Tottenham et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tottenham et al., 2009 source

      The Method (§2.3.3; page unavailable) defines calm as close to neutral and only slightly happy, supporting the description of calm faces as less positive than happy faces. The paper distinguishes high-arousal happy expressions in the Introduction (§1; page unavailable), but does not report a calm-versus-happy arousal comparison. Its normative judgments concern expression labels, not ratings of both qualities. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Because performance differed significantly by age, the count of correct trials was not equal across groups in the first-level GLM analyses.

    “As task performance was significantly different across age groups, the number of correct trials varied during first-level GLM analyses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Removing an extreme outlier made the correlation between right inferior frontal gyrus response and performance even stronger.

    “Although the correlation is significant including this individual, excluding this individual renders the resulting correlation even more reliable (r(60) = 0.45, p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The right inferior frontal gyrus responded more strongly to calm than to happy faces.

    “Posthoc analyses indicated that the right IFG also showed greater activity to calm relative to happy faces (F(2,59) = 8.95, p < 0.005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Adolescents showed greater ventral striatum engagement than children and adults in response to calm faces, though this effect was weaker.

    “and to a lesser extent, to calm faces (p's =/< 0.06; means +/− standard deviation of percent signal change for calm versus rest: children: −0.095 +/− 0.21; teens: 0.046 +/− 0.16; adults: −0.051 +/− 0.17).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Activity magnitude for happy trials, calm trials, and nogo versus go trials was not related to task performance.

    “The magnitude of activity to happy trials, calm trials, and no-go versus go trials was not associated with task performance (p's > 0.2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The right inferior frontal gyrus response across age was explained by a linear function, not a quadratic function.

    “Post-hoc analyses testing for the best fitting function indicated the right IFG response was significantly explained by a linear function (F(1,59) = 4.53, p = 0.037) and not a quadratic function (F(1,59) = .17, p > 0.6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Happy faces serve as an appetitive cue, supported by faster approach response times to happy compared with calm expressions.

    “The assertion that happy faces represent an appetitive stimulus is based on data showing that response latencies to approach happy stimuli (via button press) are speeded relative to less emotional calm expressions (Hare et al., 2005, see Results).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hare et al., 2005 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Earlier studies have shown that frontostriatal circuitry supports successful response inhibition.

    “Prior work with the go-nogo paradigm has established a role for frontostriatal circuitry in supporting successful behavioral inhibition (Casey et al., 2000; Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002; Hare et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Casey et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hare et al., 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Epidemiological research indicates that risk-taking rises in adolescence, shown by higher rates of drug and alcohol experimentation, accidental death, and unprotected sex.

    “Epidemiological studies report enhanced risk-taking behavior during the adolescent years, as evidenced by substantial influx in drug and alcohol experimentation, accidental death, and unprotected sex (Eaton, et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eaton, et al., 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results suggest that adolescents over-represent appetitive cues in the ventral striatum while having an intermediate cognitive control response.

    “These findings implicate exaggerated ventral striatal representation of appetitive cues in adolescents relative to an intermediary cognitive control response.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Striatocortical interactions are central to goal-directed behavioral regulation and to impulse suppression.

    “Striatocortical interactions have been shown across tasks and species to be central to accomplishing goal-directed behavioral regulation (Delgado, et al., 2004; Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002; Schultz, Tremblay, & Hollerman, 2000), and more specifically in the suppression of impulses (Miller & Cohen, 2001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Delgado, et al., 2004 source
    • cites Schultz, Tremblay, & Hollerman, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Miller & Cohen, 2001 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Parallel striatocortical loops for different goal-directed behaviors communicate at the level of the basal ganglia.

    “Moreover, “parallel” striatocortical loops involved in different forms of goal directed behavior (motor, oculomotor, stimulus-driven, response-driven or motivational) have long been suggested to communicate at the level of the basal ganglia (Alexander & Crutcher, 1990; Casey, 2000; Casey, Durston, & Fossella, 2001; Casey, Tottenham, & Fossella, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Alexander & Crutcher, 1990 source
    • cites Casey, 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Casey, Durston, & Fossella, 2001 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings suggest that subcortical signaling develops relatively early, while top-down control signaling is more protracted.

    “Our findings are consistent with differential biasing of these loops at the level of the striatum, when subcortical systems appear to be reaching functional maturity and suggest that while signaling of subcortical regions develops relatively early, top down signaling from these control regions may be more protracted.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Adolescent risk-taking is not solely due to immature cognitive regulation; motivational aspects of the environment affect behavioral regulation in a given context.

    “It is also not solely attributable to immature cognitive regulation abilities (Yurgelun-Todd, 2007), as motivational aspects of the environment influence the ability to regulate behavior in a given context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Yurgelun-Todd, 2007 source
    • Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Experience over time shapes the regulation of approach behaviors, shifting toward a greater balance between approach and regulatory signaling and strengthening resistance to temptation.

    “Over time, experience shapes the capacity to regulate these approach behaviors, which shifts toward a state of greater balance between dynamic approach and regulatory signaling circuitries and strengthening of the ability to resist temptation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Greater prefrontal recruitment in younger individuals may result from greater cognitive demands needed to complete the same task as older individuals.

    “Greater recruitment in younger ages may also be a result of increasing cognitive demands required of younger individuals in order to successfully complete the same task as older individuals, as suggested by Velanova and colleagues (2008) based on similar findings using an antisaccade task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Velanova and colleagues (2008)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Adolescents could suppress behavior in neutral contexts at a level between children and adults, but they specifically failed to override approach motivation toward appetitive cues.

    “These behavioral findings suggest that although adolescents can engage behavioral suppression in neutral contexts at a proficiency intermediate to children and adults, they demonstrate a specific failure to override approach motivation toward appetitive cues.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
    • Rests on an assumption: False alarm rate on happy nogo trials is a valid index of failure to suppress approach behavior toward appetitive cues.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Prior work reports inferior frontal gyrus engagement on trials where suppression was correctly invoked.

    “This pattern is consistent with prior work using the go nogo paradigm (Durston, Davidson, et al., 2003; Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002; Luna & Sweeney, 2004), reporting engagement of the inferior frontal gyrus for trials in which suppression was correctly invoked.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Durston, Davidson, et al., 2003 source
    • cites Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luna & Sweeney, 2004 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    People with Parkinson's disease and focal striatal disruption show selective deficits in identifying and selecting motivationally relevant information.

    “Indeed, individuals with Parkinson's disease who suffer from focal disruption of striatal activity demonstrate selective deficits in identifying and selecting motivationally relevant information in the environment (Cools, Ivry, & D'Espostio, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cools, Ivry, & D'Espostio, 2006 source
23 of 23

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Risk-taking during adolescence is a public health concern that raises the likelihood of poor long-term outcomes.

    “Adolescent risk-taking is a public health issue that increases the odds of poor lifetime outcomes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adolescent behavior differs qualitatively from child and adult behavior in many respects.

    “Adolescent behavior is qualitatively different from that seen in children and adults in numerous ways.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most evidence supporting these theoretical models has examined reward processing and cognitive control separately.

    “Though recent neurobiological research has largely supported this conceptualization, the majority of evidence informing these theoretical models has separately targeted either reward processing or cognitive control systems.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.

    “Using a task that contains salient, appetitive stimuli (e.g., happy faces) that facilitated approach responses”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    False alarm rate on happy nogo trials is a valid index of failure to suppress approach behavior toward appetitive cues.

    “We focus on the happy condition because happy-nogo relative to happy-go trials encompass the psychological construct of suppressing approach responses toward potential rewards.”
5 of 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?

  • Behavioral regulation in response to motivational, social, and emotional inputs relies on prefrontal circuitry.

    “Behavioral regulation in response to these inputs has been shown to rely on prefrontal circuitry (Dreyfuss et al., 2014; Hare et al., 2008; Somerville et  al., 2011)”

    From When Is an Adolescent an Adult? Assessing Cognitive Control in Emotional and Nonemotional Contexts (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011

  • Only adolescents showed impaired impulse control in the happy, relative to the calm, no-go condition in Somerville et al. (2011).

    “In fact, only adolescents showed impaired impulse control in the happy, relative to the calm, no-go condition.”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011

  • In Somerville et al. (2011), for adolescents (ages 13-17) more than for children (ages 6-12) or adults (ages 18-29), withholding a button press was more difficult when the no-go stimulus was a happy face than when it was a calm face.

    “They found that for adolescents (ages 13–17) more than for children (ages 6–12) or adults (ages 18–29), withholding a button press was more difficult when the no-go stimulus was a happy face—a rewarding stimulus—than when it was a calm face.”

    From The dual systems model: Review, reappraisal, and reaffirmation (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011

  • These neurobiological changes underlie profound maturation in motivational and cognitive domains across adolescence.

    “These neurobiological changes underlie the profound maturation in motivational and cognitive domains across adolescence [30–34]”

    From Adolescent nicotine exposure and persistent neurocircuitry changes: unveiling lifelong psychiatric risks (2025) · cites this paper as [33]

  • Earlier development of emotion-processing areas such as ventral medial frontal cortex may interact with more gradual development of cognitive control centers such as anterior cingulate cortex to support age-related improvements in behavioral flexibility.

    “Earlier development of emotion-processing areas (e.g., vMFC) within this circuitry may interact with more gradual, protracted development of cognitive control centers (e.g., ACC) to support age-related improvements in behavioral flexibility10.”

    From Developmental alterations of frontal-striatal-thalamic connectivity in obsessive-compulsive disorder (2011) · cites this paper as [10]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: r(18) = 0.54, p = .016

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .016 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .014 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .014

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2,59) = 7.80, p = .007

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .007 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .007 · recomputed p < .001

  • Inconsistent p-value: r(18) = 0.57, p = .012

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .012 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .009 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .009

  • Inconsistent p-value: r(24) = 0.49, p = .013

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .013 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .011 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .011

  • Inconsistent p-value: F(2,59) = 6.77, p < .002

    Minor

    The paper reports p < .002 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .002. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002

5 of 5

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.

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 59) = 6.77reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(2,59) = 6.77, p < .002”

  • Doesn’t add upF(2, 59) = 7.8reported p = .007 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,59) = 7.80, p = .007”

  • Doesn’t add upr(24) = 0.49reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .011

    “r(24) = 0.49, p = .013”

  • Doesn’t add upr(18) = 0.57reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .009

    “r(18) = 0.57, p = .012”

  • Doesn’t add upr(18) = 0.54reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .014

    “r(18) = 0.54, p = .016”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 15.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,59) = 15.44, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 0.24reported p > .7 · recomputed p = .787

    “F(2,59) = .24, p > .7”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 0.13reported p > .8 · recomputed p = .878

    “F(2,59) = .13, p > .8”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 12.57reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,59) = 12.57, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 3.59reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(2,59) = 3.59, p = .034”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 1.18reported p > .2 · recomputed p = .282

    “F(1,59) = 1.18, p > .2”

  • Consistentt(35) = 2.04reported p = .049 · recomputed p = .049

    “t(35) = 2.04, p = .049”

  • Consistentt(42) = 2.62reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012

    “t(42) = 2.62, p = .012”

  • Consistentt(18) = 2.87reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(18) = 2.87, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 22.3reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,59) = 22.3, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 6.52reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1,59) = 6.52, p = .013”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 14.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,59) = 14.31, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 36.09reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,59) = 36.09, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 1.78reported p > .15 · recomputed p = .178

    “F(2,59) = 1.78, p > .15”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 10.05reported p < .003 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(1,59) = 10.05, p < .003”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 0.54reported p > .4 · recomputed p = .465

    “F(1,59) = 0.54, p > .4”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 4.53reported p = .037 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1,59) = 4.53, p = .037”

  • ConsistentF(1, 59) = 0.17reported p > .6 · recomputed p = .682

    “F(1,59) = .17, p > .6”

  • ConsistentF(2, 59) = 8.95reported p < .005 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,59) = 8.95, p < .005”

  • Consistentr(61) = -0.28reported p = .026 · recomputed p = .026

    “r(61) = −0.28, p = .026”

  • Consistentr(61) = 0.39reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “r(61) = 0.39, p = .002”

  • Consistentr(61) = 0.28reported p = .026 · recomputed p = .026

    “r(61) = 0.28, p = .026”

  • Consistentr(60) = 0.45reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(60) = 0.45, p < .001”

  • Consistentr(17) = 0.41reported p = .09 · recomputed p = .081

    “r(17) = 0.41, p = .09”

29 of 29

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 98 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Somerville, L. H., Hare, T., & Casey, B. J.
Affiliations
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2011-09-01
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
2123-2134
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
DOI
10.1162/jocn.2010.21572
PMC
PMC3131482
OpenAlex
W2171760615
Cited by
523
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 18
FWCI
14.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University
  • Weill Cornell Medical College
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K99MH087813, P50MH079513, F31MH073265, P50MH062196)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA018879, T32DA007274)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
adolescent risk-taking, appetitive cues, cognitive control, ventral striatum, dorsal striatum, prefrontal cortex, frontostriatal circuits, impulse control, go/no-go task, developmental maturation, inferior frontal gyrus, neuronal connectivity
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Appetite, Brain Mapping, Child, Cognition Disorders, Corpus Striatum, Cues, Emotions, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Inhibition, Psychological, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neural Pathways, Neuropsychological Tests, Oxygen, Photic Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests, Reaction Time, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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