Neural response to rewards predicts risk-taking in late but not early adolescent females
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk-taking peaks in adolescence and reflects, in part, hyperactivity of the brain's reward system. However, it has not been established whether the association between reward-related brain activity and risk-taking varies across adolescence. The present study investigated how neural reward sensitivity is associated with laboratory risk-taking in a sample of female adolescents as a function of age. Sixty-three female adolescents ages 10-19 completed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task, a laboratory measure of risk-taking behavior, as well as a forced choice monetary gambling task while an electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. This gambling task elicits the reward positivity (RewP), a frontocentral event-related potential component that is sensitive to feedback signaling reward. We observed a negative quadratic association between age and risk-taking, such that those in early and late adolescence had lower relative risk-taking compared to mid-adolescence, with risk-taking peaking at around 15 years of age. In predicting risk-taking, we observed an interaction between age and RewP, such that reward-related brain activity was not associated with risk-taking in early adolescence but was associated with a greater propensity for risk in later adolescence. These findings suggest that for females, neural response to rewards is an important factor in predicting risk-taking only in later adolescence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it