Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42296173›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Children and adults differ in how primary and secondary incentives modulate valuation, effort, and cognitive control.

Sebastijan Veselic, Claire Rosalie Smid, Francis Beveridge, Nikolaus Steinbeis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sebastijan VeselicDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3839-8590
Claire Rosalie SmidDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom.
Francis BeveridgeDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom.
Nikolaus SteinbeisDivision of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rewards have a profound impact on human motivation, cognition, affect, and behaviour. The study of reward processing and incentive effects therefore occupies a central place in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. One common assumption when comparing groups or individuals is that different reward types are valued similarly. Here we examined this assumption in a sample of 51 adults and 39 children (7-12 years) using both primary and secondary rewards. Across three tasks - subjective valuation, willingness to exert cognitive effort, and reward-related modulation of cognitive control - adults showed stronger effects of secondary relative to primary reinforcers, whereas children showed comparatively similar responses across reward types. While we interpret our findings as consistent with age-group differences in the value assigned to secondary reinforcers, larger longitudinal studies using more closely matched incentives will be required to determine how such differences emerge across development. More broadly, our work highlights the importance of carefully considering incentive value when comparing different groups on reward-related processes.

Indexed as

CognitionMotivationRewardAdultChildFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID42296173
PMCPMC13268178

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.