Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24558455›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Interindividual differences in mid-adolescents in error monitoring and post-error adjustment.

Sarah Rodehacke, Eva Mennigen, Kathrin U Müller, Stephan Ripke, Mark J Jacob, Thomas Hübner, Dirk H K Schmidt, Thomas Goschke, Michael N Smolka

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah RodehackeNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Eva MennigenNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Kathrin U MüllerNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Stephan RipkeNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Mark J JacobNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas HübnerNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Dirk H K SchmidtNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Thomas GoschkeInstitute of General Psychology, Biopsychology and Methods of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Michael N SmolkaNeuroimaging Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany ; Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
TU Dresden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of studies have concluded that cognitive control is not fully established until late adolescence. The precise differences in brain function between adults and adolescents with respect to cognitive control, however, remain unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a study in which 185 adolescents (mean age (SD) 14.6 (0.3) years) and 28 adults (mean age (SD) 25.2 (6.3) years) performed a single task that included both a stimulus-response (S-R) interference component and a task-switching component. Behavioural responses (i.e. reaction time, RT; error rate, ER) and brain activity during correct, error and post-error trials, detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), were measured. Behaviourally, RT and ER were significantly higher in incongruent than in congruent trials and in switch than in repeat trials. The two groups did not differ in RT during correct trials, but adolescents had a significantly higher ER than adults. In line with similar RTs, brain responses during correct trials did not differ between groups, indicating that adolescents and adults engage the same cognitive control network to successfully overcome S-R interference or task switches. Interestingly, adolescents with stronger brain activation in the bilateral insulae during error trials and in fronto-parietal regions of the cognitive control network during post-error trials did have lower ERs. This indicates that those mid-adolescents who commit fewer errors are better at monitoring their performance, and after detecting errors are more capable of flexibly allocating further cognitive control resources. Although we did not detect a convincing neural correlate of the observed behavioural differences between adolescents and adults, the revealed interindividual differences in adolescents might at least in part be due to brain development.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdolescent BehaviorAdultBrainCognitionFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOxygenReaction TimeYoung AdultOxygen

Identifiers

PMID24558455
PMCPMC3928333
OpenAlexW1984842178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.