Reward improves cancellation and restraint inhibition across childhood and adolescence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhibitory control allows for the regulation of thought and action and interacts with motivational variables, such as reward, to modify behavior adaptively as environments change. The authors examined the effects of reward on two distinct forms of inhibitory control, cancellation and restraint. Typically developing children and adolescents completed 2 versions of the stop signal task (cancellation and restraint) under 3 reward conditions (neutral, low reward, and high reward), where rewards were earned for successful inhibitory control. Rewards improved both cancellation and restraint inhibition, with similar effects of reward on each form of inhibitory control. Rewards did not alter the speed of response execution in either task, suggesting that rewards specifically altered inhibition processes without influencing processes related to response execution. Adolescents were faster and less variable than children when executing and inhibiting their responses. There were similar developmental effects of reward on the speed of inhibitory control, but group differences were found in terms of accuracy of inhibition in the restraint task. These results clarify how reward modulates two different forms of regulatory behavior in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".