Literature DB >> 24960048

Adolescents adapt more slowly than adults to varying reward contingencies.

Amir Homayoun Javadi1,2, Dirk H K Schmidt1, Michael N Smolka1.   

Abstract

It has been suggested that adolescents process rewards differently from adults, both cognitively and affectively. In an fMRI study we recorded brain BOLD activity of adolescents (age range = 14-15 years) and adults (age range = 20-39 years) to investigate the developmental changes in reward processing and decision-making. In a probabilistic reversal learning task, adolescents and adults adapted to changes in reward contingencies. We used a reinforcement learning model with an adaptive learning rate for each trial to model the adolescents' and adults' behavior. Results showed that adolescents possessed a shallower slope in the sigmoid curve governing the relation between expected value (the value of the expected feedback, +1 and -1 representing rewarding and punishing feedback, respectively) and probability of stay (selecting the same option as in the previous trial). Trial-by-trial change in expected values after being correct or wrong was significantly different between adolescents and adults. These values were closer to certainty for adults. Additionally, absolute value of model-derived prediction error for adolescents was significantly higher after a correct response but a punishing feedback. At the neural level, BOLD correlates of learning rate, expected value, and prediction error did not significantly differ between adolescents and adults. Nor did we see group differences in the prediction error-related BOLD signal for different trial types. Our results indicate that adults seem to behaviorally integrate punishing feedback better than adolescents in their estimation of the current state of the contingencies. On the basis of these results, we argue that adolescents made decisions with less certainty when compared with adults and speculate that adolescents acquired a less accurate knowledge of their current state, that is, of being correct or wrong.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24960048      PMCID: PMC4340558          DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00677

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  47 in total

1.  Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex.

Authors:  J O'Doherty; M L Kringelbach; E T Rolls; J Hornak; C Andrews
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 2.  Adolescent brain development: a period of vulnerabilities and opportunities. Keynote address.

Authors:  Ronald E Dahl
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.691

3.  Developmental effects of decision-making on sensitivity to reward: an fMRI study.

Authors:  Johanna M Jarcho; Brenda E Benson; Rista C Plate; Amanda E Guyer; Allison M Detloff; Daniel S Pine; Ellen Leibenluft; Monique Ernst
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 6.464

Review 4.  Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control.

Authors:  P Read Montague; Steven E Hyman; Jonathan D Cohen
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 49.962

5.  Decoding the neural substrates of reward-related decision making with functional MRI.

Authors:  Alan N Hampton; John P O'doherty
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  The adolescent brain.

Authors:  B J Casey; Sarah Getz; Adriana Galvan
Journal:  Dev Rev       Date:  2008

7.  Genetic variation in dopaminergic neuromodulation influences the ability to rapidly and flexibly adapt decisions.

Authors:  Lea K Krugel; Guido Biele; Peter N C Mohr; Shu-Chen Li; Hauke R Heekeren
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  A neural substrate of prediction and reward.

Authors:  W Schultz; P Dayan; P R Montague
Journal:  Science       Date:  1997-03-14       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  The Composite International Diagnostic Interview. An epidemiologic Instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures.

Authors:  L N Robins; J Wing; H U Wittchen; J E Helzer; T F Babor; J Burke; A Farmer; A Jablenski; R Pickens; D A Regier
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1988-12

Review 10.  A time of change: behavioral and neural correlates of adolescent sensitivity to appetitive and aversive environmental cues.

Authors:  Leah H Somerville; Rebecca M Jones; B J Casey
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2009-08-19       Impact factor: 2.310

View more
  11 in total

1.  Reinforcement Learning during Adolescence in Rats.

Authors:  Neema Moin Afshar; Alex J Keip; Jane R Taylor; Daeyeol Lee; Stephanie M Groman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  What do Reinforcement Learning Models Measure? Interpreting Model Parameters in Cognition and Neuroscience.

Authors:  Maria K Eckstein; Linda Wilbrecht; Anne G E Collins
Journal:  Curr Opin Behav Sci       Date:  2021-07-03

3.  Reinforcement learning and Bayesian inference provide complementary models for the unique advantage of adolescents in stochastic reversal.

Authors:  Maria K Eckstein; Sarah L Master; Ronald E Dahl; Linda Wilbrecht; Anne G E Collins
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2022-04-22       Impact factor: 5.811

4.  Cognitive flexibility in adolescence: neural and behavioral mechanisms of reward prediction error processing in adaptive decision making during development.

Authors:  Tobias U Hauser; Reto Iannaccone; Susanne Walitza; Daniel Brandeis; Silvia Brem
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2014-09-16       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  The Computational Development of Reinforcement Learning during Adolescence.

Authors:  Stefano Palminteri; Emma J Kilford; Giorgio Coricelli; Sarah-Jayne Blakemore
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.475

Review 6.  Developmental Changes in Learning: Computational Mechanisms and Social Influences.

Authors:  Florian Bolenz; Andrea M F Reiter; Ben Eppinger
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-11-23

Review 7.  Computational neuroscience across the lifespan: Promises and pitfalls.

Authors:  Wouter van den Bos; Rasmus Bruckner; Matthew R Nassar; Rui Mata; Ben Eppinger
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 6.464

Review 8.  Reinforcement learning across development: What insights can we draw from a decade of research?

Authors:  Kate Nussenbaum; Catherine A Hartley
Journal:  Dev Cogn Neurosci       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 6.464

9.  Deficient Event-Related Theta Oscillations in Individuals at Risk for Alcoholism: A Study of Reward Processing and Impulsivity Features.

Authors:  Chella Kamarajan; Ashwini K Pandey; David B Chorlian; Niklas Manz; Arthur T Stimus; Andrey P Anokhin; Lance O Bauer; Samuel Kuperman; John Kramer; Kathleen K Bucholz; Marc A Schuckit; Victor M Hesselbrock; Bernice Porjesz
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Uncertainty-driven regulation of learning and exploration in adolescents: A computational account.

Authors:  Marieke Jepma; Jessica V Schaaf; Ingmar Visser; Hilde M Huizenga
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 4.475

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.