Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23338669›Full record

Trial reportJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2013

CID: a valid incentive delay paradigm for children.

Viola Kappel, Anne Koch, Robert C Lorenz, Rüdiger Brühl, Babette Renneberg, Ulrike Lehmkuhl, Harriet Salbach-Andrae, Anne Beck

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Viola KappelDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. viola.kappel@charite.de
Anne Koch
Robert C Lorenz
Rüdiger Brühl
Babette Renneberg
Ulrike Lehmkuhl
Harriet Salbach-Andrae
Anne Beck

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite several modifications and the wide use of the monetary incentive delay paradigm (MID; Knutson et al. in J Neurosci 21(16):RC159, 2001a) for assessing reward processing, evidence concerning its application in children is scarce. A first child-friendly MID modification has been introduced by Gotlib et al. (Arch Gen Psychiatry 67(4): 380-387, 2010); however, comparability in the results of different tasks and validity across different age groups remains unclear. We investigated the validity of a newly modified MID task for children (CID) using functional magnetic resonance imaging. The CID comprises the integration of a more age appropriate feedback phase. We focused on reward anticipation and their neural correlates. Twenty healthy young adults completed the MID and the CID. Additionally, 10 healthy children completed the CID. As expected, both paradigms elicited significant ventral and dorsal striatal activity in young adults during reward anticipation. No differential effects of the tasks on reaction times, accuracy rates or on the total amount of gain were observed. Furthermore, the CID elicited significant ventral striatal activity in healthy children. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate evidence for the validity of the CID paradigm. The CID can be recommended for the application in future studies on reward processing in children, adolescents, and in adults.

Indexed as

RewardAdultChildCorpus StriatumFemaleHumansMaleMotivationPilot ProjectsPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.