4.2 Article

Age-related influence of contingencies on a saccade task

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 174, Issue 4, Pages 754-762

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0520-9

Keywords

eyemovement; cognitive control; sensation seeking

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 MH999999] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Adolescence is characterized by increased risk-taking and sensation-seeking, presumably brought about by developmental changes within reward-mediating brain circuits. A better understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying reward-seeking during adolescence can have critical implications for the development of strategies to enhance adolescent performance in potentially dangerous situations. Yet little research has investigated the influence of age on the modulation of behavior by incentives with neuroscience-based methods. A monetary reward antisaccade task (the RST) was used with 23 healthy adolescents and 30 healthy adults. Performance accuracy, latency and peak velocity of saccade responses (prosaccades and antisaccades) were analyzed. Performance accuracy across all groups was improved by incentives (obtain reward, avoid punishment) for both, prosaccades and antisaccades. However, modulation of antisaccade errors (direction errors) by incentives differed between groups: adolescents modulated saccade latency and peak velocity depending on contingencies, with incentives aligning their performance to that of adults; adults did not show a modulation by incentives. These findings suggest that incentives modulate a global measure of performance (percent direction errors) in adults and adolescents, and exert a more powerful influence on the control of incorrect motor responses in adolescents than in adults. These findings suggest that this task can be used in neuroimaging studies as a probe of the influence of incentives on cognitive control from a developmental perspective as well as in health and disease.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available