Adolescent Cognitive Control, Theta Oscillations, and Social Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Theta oscillations (4-8 Hz) provide an organizing principle of cognitive control, allowing goal-directed behavior that is conserved across species. In human adults, theta power over medial-frontal cortex (MFC) underlies monitoring, whereas theta synchrony between MFC and lateral-frontal regions reflects control recruitment. Prior work has not separated theta before/after motor responses, nor explained how medial-lateral synchrony drives different kinds of control behaviors. Theta’s role during adolescence, a developmental window characterized by a motivation-control mismatch also remains unclear, preventing possible cross-species work. Here, adolescents performed a flanker task alone or under observation to increase social motivation. We separated theta dynamics immediately before/after motor responses, identifying functional dissociations. We also dissociate MFC connectivity with rostral/caudal frontal cortex and distinct forms of behavioral control, which further differed before/after response. Finally, social motivation was found to exclusively upregulate post-response error monitoring and changes in control to prevent future errors, as opposed to pre-response theta dynamics.
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".