The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 49 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Frontostriatal Maturation Predicts Cognitive Control Failure to Appetitive Cues in Adolescents
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
48 Own result · 18 Own interpretation · 8 No full text of the sources · 6 Not checked yet · 3 Supported · 3 Partly supported · 3 Sources not found · 1 Supported so far · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Balleine, Delgado, & Hikosaka, 2007 source
- Not matchedcites Delgado, Stenger, & Fiez, 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Rubia, et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
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.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Casey, Getz, et al., 2008 source
- Supportedcites Steinberg, 2008 source
The Introduction describes adolescent risk-taking as the product of an interaction between the socio-emotional and cognitive control networks. It explains that the socio-emotional system becomes more assertive around puberty while cognitive control strengthens gradually, making adolescence a period of heightened vulnerability to risky behavior. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Geier, et al., 2010 source
The Discussion (Developmental Differences in Reward Anticipation/Response Preparation) reports robust ventral striatal activity in adolescents, but not adults, while preparing to respond on reward trials. The Results (Epoch 2: Response Preparation/Anticipation) likewise describe a heightened adolescent response and little adult activity in that region. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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.
- Supported
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 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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Methods > Analysis of fMRI data
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.
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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Methods > Control analyses
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
“Examining recruitment developmentally showed that teens had greater between-subjects ventral-dorsal striatal coactivation relative to children and adults for happy nogo versus go trials.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
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
“Prefrontal cortical recruitment correlated with overall accuracy and showed a linear response with age for nogo versus go trials.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
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.
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
“Teens generated significantly more false alarms for happy relative to calm trials compared to children (t(35) = 2.04, p = 0.049)”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Behavioral performance
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.
- 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.
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 false alarms committed by adolescents were significantly loaded in the happy condition (happy versus calm t(18) = 2.87, p = 0.01)”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Behavioral performance
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.
- 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.
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
“For false alarm rates, we observed a main effect of age (F(2,59) = 12.57, p < 0.001)”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Behavioral performance
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.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Geier, et al., 2010 source
The Rewarded AS Task section describes monetary rewards for correctly performing an antisaccade, an inhibitory response, versus neutral trials with no money at stake. The Results (Behavior) report a significant overall effect of incentive type and significantly more correct inhibitory responses on rewarded trials among adolescents; the Discussion says performance improved in both age groups. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites Hardin, et al., 2009 source
The Discussion reports that incentives enhanced inhibitory control in anxious and healthy adolescents, improving both accuracy and latency. The Methods describe an antisaccade task in which participants earned $1 for a correct response—looking away from the target—compared with a no-reward condition. Incorrect responses in the reward condition also incurred a $1 loss. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Methods > Analysis of fMRI data
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Casey et al., 2000 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion describes an anterior cingulate–prefrontal system that may inhibit incompatible responses during a flanker task. It assigns caudate and other basal-ganglia activity to violations of expectancy, not successful response inhibition. The paper therefore supports a frontal role in inhibitory control, but not the claimed frontostriatal role established with a go–nogo paradigm. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Durston, Thomas, Yang, et al., 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hare et al., 2005 source
boostedcorrelational- 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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Somerville & Casey, 2010 source
The Abstract (page unavailable) describes adolescents’ heightened sensitivity to motivational cues as challenging cognitive control and producing an imbalance between systems. The Corticosubcortical Control section (page unavailable) links developmental frontostriatal interactions to behavior and reports heightened adolescent ventral-striatal responses to rewards. The cited claim is consistent with this proposed account, rather than a claim that the circuitry’s mediating role was directly established. (LLM, conf=0.88)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Hardin, et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Velanova, Wheeler, & Luna, 2008 source
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.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Though normative data suggest that calm faces are less positive and arousing than happy faces (Tottenham et al., 2009)”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion > Limitations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tottenham et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
hedged- 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.
- Partly supported
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
“As task performance was significantly different across age groups, the number of correct trials varied during first-level GLM analyses.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Methods > Control analyses
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. 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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
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.
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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
hedged- 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 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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
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.
- Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
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 magnitude of activity to happy trials, calm trials, and no-go versus go trials was not associated with task performance (p's > 0.2).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
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.
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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
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.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hare et al., 2005 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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Eaton, et al., 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
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
“These findings implicate exaggerated ventral striatal representation of appetitive cues in adolescents relative to an intermediary cognitive control response.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Abstract
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- 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
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
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
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Yurgelun-Todd, 2007 source
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: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
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
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion > Conclusion
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Happy faces function as appetitive cues that signal reward and facilitate approach responses.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Velanova and colleagues (2008)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
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.
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
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
“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).”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cools, Ivry, & D'Espostio, 2006 source
boosteddirect- 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 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.”
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“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]
In the citing paper
“FSTC maturation supports the engagement of cognitive control in response to potential rewards10 and the processing of errors to improve performance on cognitive tasks11.”
From Developmental alterations of frontal-striatal-thalamic connectivity in obsessive-compulsive disorder (2011) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“Consistent with this hypothesis is evidence from human developmental imaging studies showing impulsivity to emotional cues regardless of valence (positive or negative) or value (rewarding) in early adolescence [25,26] and activation of these two regions [25,27].”
From Development of the emotional brain (2019) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Thus development of local subcortical circuitry before corticosubcortical circuitry during adolescence could trigger impulsivity to cues, regardless of valence (positive or negative) or value (rewarding), a finding supported by our recent human developmental studies (Somerville et al., 2011, Dreyfuss et al., 2014).”
From Beyond simple models of adolescence to an integrated circuit-based account: A commentary (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Viewing developmental findings through a circuit lens is not only faithful to the organization of the underlying biological systems and to knowledge gained from elegant nonhuman studies, but it readily accommodates key findings demonstrating how the interactive effects of motivation signals on cognitive control change over development (e.g., Geier et al., 2010, Somerville et al., 2011, Teslovich”
From Beyond simple models of adolescence to an integrated circuit-based account: A commentary (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“However, in both healthy youths (Somerville et al., 2011) and those at risk for depression (Monk et al., 2008), emotional faces like happy have been effective in recruiting NAcc activity and effective in separating out diagnostic groups.”
From Reduced nucleus accumbens reactivity and adolescent depression following early-life stress (2013) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Importantly, the subregions identified by Shaw et al. [60] closely resemble subregions identified in a recent meta-analysis of adult insular function during cognitive and emotional processes [64].”
From The role of the anterior insula in adolescent decision making (2014) · cites this paper as [64]
In the citing paper
“Normative development of the brain regions involved in reward processing demonstrates structural and functional changes from childhood to adulthood, with maturation of PFC regions typically delayed compared to that of subcortical regions (Galvan et al., 2006; Mills et al., 2014; Somerville et al., 2011).”
From The effects of early life stress on reward processing (2018) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“BOLD signal in these regions was exaggerated in adolescents, compared with adults, in a go/no-go task that used happy faces as appetitive cues [27].”
From Is there heightened sensitivity to social reward in adolescence? (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Compared with children (6-12 year olds) and adults (18-29), adolescents (13-17) showed poorer impulse control to happy faces, as indicated by false alarms (erroneous presses) in no-go trials”
From Is there heightened sensitivity to social reward in adolescence? (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“and increased activation in the VS to happy faces relative to calm faces (collapsed across go and no-go trials; [27]).”
From Is there heightened sensitivity to social reward in adolescence? (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Second, existing evidence indicates that human adolescents find potential social evaluation of either valence more salient than other ages [27,28]”
From Is there heightened sensitivity to social reward in adolescence? (2016) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“Adolescents vs. children and adults showed greater ventral striatum activity. PFC recruitment positively correlated with overall accuracy and decreased with increasing age for no-go vs. go trials.Adolescents vs. children and adults showed greater ventral-dorsal striatal co-activation for happy no-go vs. go trials (fMRI)”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“False alarm rate on no-go happy trials relative to no-go neutral trials was greater for adolescents than for either children or adults”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“activation in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG; typically activated during inhibitory control (e.g. Aron et al., 2004), decreased with increasing age for no-go relative to go trials”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“This adolescent-specific performance dip was paralleled by heightened activity in the VS, an area involved in the processing and anticipation of rewards (Schultz, 2006).”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“the false alarm rate on no-go ‘happy’ trials relative to no-go neutral trials was disproportionately greater for adolescents (aged 13–17) than for either children (aged 6–12) or adults (18–29) (Somerville et al., 2011).”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“children showed reduced functional coactivation between these regions on happy no-go relative to happy go trials, compared with adolescents and adults”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“and was positively correlated with overall no-go false alarms.”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“while adolescents showed increased coactivation between dorsal and VS relative to both children and adults.”
From Neurocognitive bases of emotion regulation development in adolescence (2015) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“One study showed a transient adolescent (age 13–17) decrease in response inhibition relative to children and adults (Somerville et al., 2010), however there are considerable individual differences in performance across studies that may reflect age independent factors.”
From Does puberty mark a transition in sensitive periods for plasticity in the associative neocortex? (2017) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2010
In the citing paper
“Consistent with this perspective, prior work has demonstrated that adolescents’ ability to regulate emotional and behavioral responses toward social and emotional cues continues to improve through adolescence (37–39).”
From Development of self-protective biases in response to social evaluative feedback (2017) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Such peaks in ventral striatum activation are associated with compromised cognitive control (Somerville et al., 2011) and increased self-reported risk taking (Galván et al., 2007).”
From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Although adolescents tend to show detriments in cognitive performance, particularly in highly arousing or emotional states (e.g., Hare et al., 2008, Somerville et al., 2011), adolescents actually show improved performance (i.e., inhibit prepotent responses) when they are rewarded for doing so (Geier and Luna, 2009, Geier and Luna, 2012, Geier et al., 2010, Padmanabhan et al., 2011).”
From Dopaminergic reward sensitivity can promote adolescent health: a new perspective on the mechanism of ventral striatum activation (2016) · cites this paper as Somerville et al., 2011
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
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
“r(18) = 0.54, p = 0.016”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Connectivity analyses
Reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .014
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
“F(2,59) = 7.80, p = 0.007”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
Reported p = .007 · recomputed p < .001
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
“r(18) = 0.57, p = 0.012”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Connectivity analyses
Reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .009
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
“r(24) = 0.49, p = 0.013”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > Connectivity analyses
Reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .011
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
“F(2,59) = 6.77, p < 0.002”
§ Frontostriatal maturation predicts cognitive control failure to appetitive cues in adolescents > Results > fMRI results
Reported p < .002 · recomputed p = .002
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”
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.
Citations
Cites
An Integrative Theory of Prefrontal Cortex Function
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167 · Cited by 12,803
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
AFNI: Software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages
Cox, R. W. (1996) · Computers and Biomedical Research · doi:10.1006/cbmr.1996.0014 · Cited by 10,913
Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain
Laitinen, L. (1989) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/0303-8467(89)90128-5 · Cited by 7,565
Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T., Evans, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1999) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/13158 · Cited by 5,552
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
Talairach, J., Tournoux, P., & Rayport, M. (1988) · Thieme eBooks · Cited by 5,058
Functional architecture of basal ganglia circuits: neural substrates of parallel processing
Alexander, G. E., & Crutcher, M. D. (1990) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(90)90107-l · Cited by 4,131
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 social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking
Steinberg, L. (2008) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002 · Cited by 3,644
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: Imaging acquisition across 21 sites
Casey, B. J., Cannonier, T., Conley, M. I., Cohen, A. O., Barch, D. M., Heitzeg, M. M., Soules, M. E., Teslovich, T., Dellarco, D. V., Garavan, H., et al. (2018) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2018.03.001 · Cited by 2,167
Self-citationThe Brain on Stress: Vulnerability and Plasticity of the Prefrontal Cortex over the Life Course
McEwen, B. S., & Morrison, J. H. (2013) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.06.028 · Cited by 1,079
The Teenage Brain: Sensitivity to Social Evaluation
Somerville, L. H. (2013) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721413476512 · Cited by 1,011
Self-citationMotivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism
Botvinick, M., & Braver, T. (2015) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044 · Cited by 909
Metadata
- Authors
- Somerville, L. H., Hare, T., & Casey, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- 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
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
