MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518532783 · doi:10.1093/scan/nsw122

Neural responses to reward in childhood: relations to early behavioral inhibition and social anxiety

2016· article· en· W2518532783 on OpenAlexaff
Ayelet Lahat, Brenda E. Benson, Daniel S. Pine, Nathan A. Fox, Monique Ernst

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychologyReactivity (psychology)Behavioral inhibitionFunctional magnetic resonance imagingDevelopmental psychologyNoveltySocial anxietyAnxietyReward dependenceVentral striatumNovelty seekingTemperamentClinical psychologyStriatumNeurosciencePsychiatryPersonalityMedicineDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral inhibition (BI) is an early temperamental profile characterized by negative reactivity to novelty, withdrawal from social situations, and increased risk for social anxiety. Previous research associated BI assessed in early childhood to striatal hypersensitivity in mid-to-late adolescence. The present study examined this association among 10 year-olds, characterized with BI at ages 24 and 36 months on measures of temperamental reactivity. Participants (n = 40) were studied at age 10 using a reward processing task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Child- and maternal-report of social anxiety symptoms was collected at ages 10 and 13. Findings indicate greater caudate activation and stronger striatal connectivity in high, compared to low, behaviorally inhibited children. Caudate activation related to social anxiety symptoms at both ages. These findings suggest that enhanced striatal responsivity reliably manifests among high behaviorally inhibited children as early as age 10. This may reflect hyper-sensitivity to reward or excessive motivation to avoid errors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Cognitive and Affective NeuroscienceSame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207