4.3 Article

Stress Modulates Reinforcement Learning in Younger and Older Adults

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 35-46

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0029823

Keywords

probabilistic reinforcement learning; stress; aging; cortisol; reward

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [T32 AG000037, F31AG038137, F31 AG038137, K02 AG032309, K02AG032309, R21 AG030758, R01 AG038043, T32AG000037, R21AG030758, R01AG038043] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal research and human neuroimaging studies indicate that stress increases dopamine levels in brain regions involved in reward processing, and stress also appears to increase the attractiveness of addictive drugs. The current study tested the hypothesis that stress increases reward salience, leading to more effective learning about positive than negative outcomes in a probabilistic selection task. Changes to dopamine pathways with age raise the question of whether stress effects on incentive-based learning differ by age. Thus, the present study also examined whether effects of stress on reinforcement learning differed for younger (age 18-34) and older participants (age 65-85). Cold pressor stress was administered to half of the participants in each age group, and salivary cortisol levels were used to confirm biophysiological response to cold stress. After the manipulation, participants completed a probabilistic learning task involving positive and negative feedback. In both younger and older adults, stress enhanced learning about cues that predicted positive outcomes. In addition, during the initial learning phase, stress diminished sensitivity to recent feedback across age groups. These results indicate that stress affects reinforcement learning in both younger and older adults and suggests that stress exerts different effects on specific components of reinforcement learning depending on their neural underpinnings.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available