Developmental changes in the reward positivity: An electrophysiological trajectory of reward processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children and adolescents learn to regulate their behavior by utilizing feedback from the environment but exactly how this ability develops remains unclear. To investigate this question, we recorded the event-related brain potential (ERP) from children (8-13 years), adolescents (14-17 years) and young adults (18-23 years) while they navigated a "virtual maze" in pursuit of monetary rewards. The amplitude of the reward positivity, an ERP component elicited by feedback stimuli, was evaluated for each age group. A current theory suggests the reward positivity is produced by the impact of reinforcement learning signals carried by the midbrain dopamine system on anterior cingulate cortex, which utilizes the signals to learn and execute extended behaviors. We found that the three groups produced a reward positivity of comparable size despite relatively longer ERP component latencies for the children, suggesting that the reward processing system reaches maturity early in development. We propose that early development of the midbrain dopamine system facilitates the development of extended goal-directed behaviors in anterior cingulate cortex.
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) | 0.002 | 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".