↓ Skip to main content

Neural Correlates of Rewarded Response Inhibition in Youth at Risk for Problematic Alcohol Use

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Neural Correlates of Rewarded Response Inhibition in Youth at Risk for Problematic Alcohol Use
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00205
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Risk for substance use disorder (SUD) is associated with poor response inhibition and heightened reward sensitivity. During adolescence, incentives improve performance on response inhibition tasks and increase recruitment of cortical control areas (Geier et al., 2010) associated with SUD (Chung et al., 2011). However, it is unknown whether incentives moderate the relationship between response inhibition and trait-level psychopathology and personality features of substance use risk. We examined these associations in the current project using a rewarded antisaccade (AS) task (Geier et al., 2010) in youth at risk for substance use. Participants were 116 adolescents and young adults (ages 12-21) from the University of Pittsburgh site of the National Consortium on Adolescent Neurodevelopment and Alcohol [NCANDA] study, with neuroimaging data collected at baseline and 1 year follow up visits. Building upon previous work using this task in normative developmental samples (Geier et al., 2010) and adolescents with SUD (Chung et al., 2011), we examined both trial-wise BOLD responses and those associated with individual task-epochs (cue presentation, response preparation, and response) and associated them with multiple substance use risk factors (externalizing and internalizing psychopathology, family history of substance use, and trait impulsivity). Results showed that externalizing psychopathology and high levels of trait impulsivity (positive urgency, SUPPS-P) were associated with general decreases in antisaccade performance. Accompanying this main effect of poor performance, positive urgency was associated with reduced recruitment of the frontal eye fields (FEF) and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in both a priori regions of interest and at the voxelwise level. Consistent with previous work, monetary incentive improved antisaccade behavioral performance and was associated with increased activation in the striatum and cortical control areas. However, incentives did not moderate the association between response inhibition behavioral performance and any trait-level psychopathology and personality factor of substance use risk. Reward interactions were observed for BOLD responses at the task-epoch level, however, they were inconsistent across substance use risk types. The results from this study may suggest poor response inhibition and heightened reward sensitivity are not overlapping neurocognitive features of substance use risk. Alternatively, more subtle, common longitudinal processes might jointly explain reward sensitivity and response inhibition deficits in substance use risk.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 17 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Student > Master 8 7%
Researcher 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 44 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 29 26%
Neuroscience 15 14%
Engineering 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 46 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#18,164,475
of 28,257,452 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,092
of 3,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,564
of 347,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#51
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,257,452 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.