Age differences in the impact of peers on adolescents’ and adults’ neural response to reward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research suggests that increased adolescent risk-taking in the presence of peers may be linked to the influence of peers on the valuation and processing of rewards during decision-making. The current study explores this idea by examining how peer observation impacts the processing of rewards when such processing is isolated from other facets of risky decision-making (e.g. risk-perception and preference, inhibitory processing, etc.). In an fMRI paradigm, a sample of adolescents (ages 14-19) and adults (ages 25-35) completed a modified High/Low Card Guessing Task that included rewarded and un-rewarded trials. Social context was manipulated by having participants complete the task both alone and while being observed by two, same-age, same-sex peers. Results indicated an interaction of age and social context on the activation of reward circuitry during the receipt of reward; when observed by peers adolescents exhibited greater ventral striatal activation than adults, but no age-related differences were evinced when the task was completed alone. These findings suggest that, during adolescence, peers influence recruitment of reward-related regions even when they are engaged outside of the context of risk-taking. Implications for engagement in prosocial, as well as risky, behaviors during adolescence are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".