4.5 Article

Forgetting the best when predicting the worst: Preliminary observations on neural circuit function in adolescent social anxiety

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 21-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.03.002

关键词

Development; Striatum; Medial prefrontal cortex; Prediction error; Peer feedback; Learning

资金

  1. NIMH intramural research program [00018057, 01-M-0192]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Social anxiety disorder typically begins in adolescence, a sensitive period for brain development, when increased complexity and salience of peer relationships requires novel forms of social learning. Disordered social learning in adolescence may explain how brain dysfunction promotes social anxiety. Socially anxious adolescents (n = 15) and adults (n = 19) and non-anxious adolescents (n = 24) and adults (n = 32) predicted, then received, social feedback from high and low-value peers while undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). A surprise recall task assessed memory biases for feedback. Neural correlates of social evaluation prediction errors (PEs) were assessed by comparing engagement to expected and unexpected positive and negative feedback. For socially anxious adolescents, but not adults or healthy participants of either age group, PEs elicited heightened striatal activity and negative fronto-striatal functional connectivity. This occurred selectively to unexpected positive feedback from high-value peers and corresponded with impaired memory for social feedback. While impaired memory also occurred in socially-anxious adults, this impairment was unrelated to brain-based PE activity. Thus, social anxiety in adolescence may relate to altered neural correlates of PEs that contribute to impaired learning about social feedback. Small samples necessitate replication. Nevertheless, results suggest that the relationship between learning and fronto-striatal function may attenuate as development progresses. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据