SPRING The Adolescent Brain

Question 1

galvan et al 2007 risk taking describe

Answer 1

risky beh in children teens and adults
assess risk taking, impulsivity and risk perception via Qs
then delayed response reward task
- cue assoc with specific reward and cue on specific location - implicitly learn what reward linked to what cue

Question 2

what is adolescence

Answer 2

between childhood and adulthood
onset of puberty
more sensitive to environment and more emotional/mood distrubances

Question 3

describe the triadic brian (ernst, pine and hardin 2006)

Answer 3

changes in risk is a result in changes in the engagement between reward beh, avoidance and regulatory systems
PFC- regulation -assess signals in context, ensure making appropriate response
amygdala - role in fear, threat and emotion, vigilance and attend to environment (high activity = respond to threat)
ventral striatum (NA + VT role in DA)
- highly active then perceive event as rewarding

• areas work together to regulate risk and emotion

Question 4

the triadic brain thought to be in teens

Answer 4

increase response of VS and decrease response of AMYG - more susceptible to reward and less susceptible to threat
PFC immature and connections weaker - less behavioural regulation, more likely to respond to immediate environement and bias risk assess

Question 5

Somerville et al (2011) go no go risk and reward

Answer 5

6-19y/o in go-no-go paradigm and fmri using happy and neutral faces
happy face = social cue for reward
focus on frontostiatal circuitory and VS

Question 6

difference in teens and children in inability to inhibit

Answer 6

children under parental control - ontrol by external mediators
teens no parental control - must learn to conrol by themselves and therefore make sig rise in risk/response to happy faces
+ diff in structure and function of brain due to dev

Question 7

Casey et al 2008 development of the PFC and NA

Answer 7

greater NA activity in response to rewards in teens
less mature PFC response in teens and children > adults
diff dev trajectories

Question 8

describe procedure van leijenhorst et al 2010 impulsivity and risk

Answer 8

fmri to test dev if changes in brain activation during decision is linear in dACC & LPFC but peak in vmPFC and VS
8-10,12-14,16-17 and 19-26y/os
two choice decision task chosing between high and low risk gamble (high = varied reward)

Question 9

results van leijenhorst et al 2010 impulsivity and risk

Answer 9

risk increase when reward increase - not differ by age
decrease in risk taking with age when high risk lower (£2) - older more risk averse when reward is lower/more ambiguous
adults realise not necessary to tak high risk for low reward and earn more for low risk
young more high risk in low reward

Question 10

ffmri results van leijenhorst et al 2010 risk and PFC/ACC

Answer 10

high risk>low risk = increase in mPFC, dPFC, vmPFC and ACC
low risk>high risk = increase right dlPFC- assoc with cog control and response inhibition
linear decrease in dACC with agg - assess error and pain recog- something gone wrong

Question 11

describe fuzzy trace theory

Answer 11

in order to be good at something must develop expertise

adults get more experiece and therefore better at chosing the best outcome

Question 12

fmri reward and control results van leijenhorst et al 2010 impulsivity and risk

Answer 12

gain > no gain in high risk
= active in mPFC and VS - peak in teens in caudate
gain>no gain in increasing reward outcomes
= active r.putamen, r.VS and NAcc
risk assoc with mPFC and VS (reward) and caution with dlPFC (cog control)
child age related decrease in dACC (control)
adolescence specific peak in vmPFC in decision making and VS in outcome

Question 13

dorsal accuberns and subcallosal cortex results van leijenhorst et al 2010 impulsivity and risk

Answer 13

dACC - assessment of error and pain
- linear decrease with age - less likely to find error in actions as more expertise

subcallosal cortex - assoc with emotional responses, not linear, peak in teens

Question 14

dreyfuss et al 2014 go no go on amyg and pfc

Answer 14

go no go on impulsivity to threat stimuli in 6-12, 13-17 and 18+
adolescents > false alarms than children or adults
failure to inhibit response to emotional stimuli- heightened sensitivity to emotional cues?

Question 15

define adolescent emergent

Answer 15

linear development and plateau

gradual and maintained activity after adolescence

Question 16

define adolescent specific

Answer 16

peak in adolescence - hightened response

Question 17

dreyfuss et al 2014 go no go brain areas emergent

Answer 17

left premotor cortex
right anterior cingulate cortex
right inferior frontal gyrus
– regulate attention/ignore irrelevant info

Question 18

dreyfuss et al 2014 go no go brain areas specific

Answer 18

left orbitofrontal cortex
left striatum
left mPFC
– reg of emotional and beh responses - especially to threat stimuli

Question 19

limits of triadic brain model on teens

Answer 19

can be correct

where amygdala is thought to decrease actually increase response to threat as well as reward

Question 20

limits of casey et al 2008 PFC and NA development (PFC linear NA earlier)

Answer 20

cant be correct

only reflects a response to reward and not to threat

Question 21

describe the imbalance framework (casey et al 2016)

Answer 21

integrated circuit based perspective on development of self control
fine tuning of connections in complex cortical and subcortical PF and limbic areas
maturation of top down projections with age

Question 22

describe albert et al 2013

Answer 22

effect of context on reward in the adolescent brain

adolescent increase risk if with peers

Question 23

peer influence on adolescence
larson et al 1996
blakemore and mills 2014
bernott 1979

Answer 23

larson - opinions of peers more important than family
blakemore and mills - peer relations more rewarding so more influential on decision making processes
bernott- curvilinear conformity to peers between mid and late adolescence with peak in early

Question 24

mood distrubances in adolescence

sebastian burnett and blakemore 2008

Answer 24

associated with the emergence of self concept and disproportionately enhances self awareness compared t childhood/adulthood

Question 25

adolescent risk taking stats

eaton et al 2006

Answer 25

13000 asolescent deaths in USA

70% from motor vehicle crashes, unintentional injury, homocide and suicide

Question 26

impulsivit and risk taking distinction

casey, getz and galvan 2008

Answer 26

teens stereotypically more impulsive and risk taking but not the same thing - distinct constructs with different developmental trajectories

Question 27

impulsivity

casey getz and galvan 2008

Answer 27

acting without forethought

acting in a rapid and unplanned manner to internal or external stimuli without regard of possible negative consequences

Question 28

developmental trajectory of impulsivity

casey getz and galvan 2008

Answer 28

diminished with age

associated with protracte edvelopment of the PFC

Question 29

risk taking

casey getz and galvan 2008

Answer 29

act of doing something that involves danger or risk in order to achieve a goal

Question 30

developmental trajectory of risk taking

casey getz and galvan 2008

Answer 30

increase in adolescence but lower in childhood and adulthood

associated with subcortical systems in the evaluation of rewards

Question 31

Galvan et al 2007 risk taking procedure

Answer 31

three cues assoc with distinct reward value
indicate whether cue on left or right of screen then get high or low reward
implicitly learn reward assoc with different cues

Question 32

galvan et al 2007 risk taking results

Answer 32

fMRI
anticipation of pos/neg reward assoc with NA and risk taking
expectation of neg = lower NA activity
expectation of pos = higher NA and more risk beh
dev shift: asolescence and adults increase risk if pos consequence
increase risk in adolescence may be related to increase response to immediate pos reward
x2 high risk teens - more NA response - indiv diff

Question 33

schramm-sapyta et al 2004

Answer 33

sensitivity to reward due to hypersensitive reward system that influences reaction to drugs
adolescent rodents more locomotor activity than adults when exposed to cocaine and lower nicotine withdrawal

Question 34

describe the go no go paradigm

Answer 34

inhibit typical response to stimulus ie happy face
and respond to stimulus that is neutral/would not usually elicit a response
misses - fail to respond in go trial (not respond to neutral)
false alarms - respond in no go (respond automatically to stimulus told to inhibit)

Question 35

galvan et al 2006 frontostriatal maturation

Answer 35

VS show strong signalling in adolescence
may be indicative of early maturaion
dopamine rich brain region- represents the appetitive value of potential rewards

Question 36

geid et al 1999 frontostriatal maturation

Answer 36

ventrolateral and frontostriatal networks less structurally and functionally mature in adolscence
assoc with integration of motivational and cog control processess

Question 37

somerville et al 2011 frontostriatal and VS results

Answer 37

no sig effect of age on misses
teens sig more false alarms (respond to happy when should inhibit) - reduced capacity to suppress approach to salient appetitive cue
increase activity in VS in teens>child/adult (adol specific) - sig to happy> neutral faces - exagerated rep of reward in teens and top down reg likely to be protracted

Question 38

evolutionary reasons for diff dev trajectories of NA and PFC

Answer 38

adolescence is time to seek independence ie leavve family, seek sexual partners etc so need to be more impulsive and risky in decisions in order to succeed

Question 39

describe “cake gambling task” val leijenhorst et al 2010

Answer 39

chose between high and low risk gamble assoc with probabalistic monetary reward
4:2 wedges assoc with rewards
computer randomly selects wedge - if colour match that chosen then win gamble
probabilities kept constant but reward change:
high either £2, £4, £6 or £8 while low always £1
(66% win low, 33% win high)

Question 40

dreyfuss et al gender

Answer 40

males influence energent specific response in adolescence
- more false alarms and increased OFC activation (approach beh)
females show more mPFC activity related to reg of avoidance beh

Question 41

casey et al 2016 imbalance - role of mPFC

Answer 41

modulates activity of VS na damygdala

supress outputs leading to emotive responses/actions

Question 42

casey at al 2016 imbanalce - role of VS

Answer 42

learning and prediction of reward outcomes

input from amyg - learn emotional sig of environmental cues - facilitates VS leading to motivated action

Question 43

casey et al 2016 imbalance - PFC

Answer 43

top down modulation of subcortical outputs

cog control and goal orientation - modulate frontolimbic circuits via mPFC

Question 44

casey et al 2016 imbalance in adolescence

Answer 44

lack of maturity across all regions into adulthod
sensorimotor and subcortical regions more connections than PFC
cortical thickness in sensorimotor cortices increase in late childhood then PFC increase in early adulthood (gogtay et al 2004)

Question 45

gardner and steinberg 2005 peers on risk

Answer 45

peeers affect risk in driving
13-16y/o sig increase driving risk in presence of peers than alone than adults
peers prime heightened motivational states, diminish ability to perform cog self control

Question 46

albert chien and steinberg 2013 risk and peers

Answer 46

risk beh in teens in presence of others
early adolescence x2 more likely to be risky in diving in presence of x2 same aged peers
late adolsecents 50% riskier
and more risk to immediate reward

Question 47

silva et al 2016 risk and peers

Answer 47

presence of people or specific peers
18-22 or 15-30 sit in during driving in stoplight stimulation
- reach end of track as fast as possible - if stop lose time but if run could risk crash
peers sig increase than alone and sig more than adults
adults mean teen behave similar to when alone