An ERP investigation of children and adolescents’ sensitivity to wins and losses during a peer observation manipulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this ERP P3 study was to test a peer observation manipulation (being observed by a peer versus being alone) on neural markers of attention to reward (win-feedback) and punishment (loss-feedback) during the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. Participants (126 children, 53 % male, 8-10 years; 196 early adolescents, 50 % male, 11-13 years; and 121 mid-adolescents, 52 % male, 14-16 years) were assessed by age group and pubertal status. Individual differences in how participants felt about being observed by a peer, and self-report personality factors, also were examined. Findings indicated that early and mid-adolescents (and individuals in mid-puberty and late-puberty) were sensitive to peer observation as both groups showed larger neural responses to loss-feedback in the peer condition than in the alone condition. Conversely, children (and individuals in pre- and early-puberty) were unaffected by peer observation. In addition, there clearly were individual differences in how rewarding versus anxiety-provoking participants found the peer experience. Early adolescents and mid-adolescents (and individuals in mid- and late-puberty) who reported feeling more anxious about the peer observation elicited larger neural responses to loss-feedback, and individuals in mid- and late-puberty in particular reported higher worry and lower sensation-seeking scores than those who reported a positive experience.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".