Are neural and behavioural measures of cognitive control associated with adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking in adolescence and young adulthood?

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Montana Hunter, Patrick Skippen, Sara Lo Templio, Daniel Barker, Patricia T Michie, Frini Karayanidis
{"title":"Are neural and behavioural measures of cognitive control associated with adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking in adolescence and young adulthood?","authors":"Montana Hunter, Patrick Skippen, Sara Lo Templio, Daniel Barker, Patricia T Michie, Frini Karayanidis","doi":"10.3758/s13415-026-01420-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risk-taking in young people is often attributed to a mismatch between slowly maturing cognitive control networks and overactive reward networks, leading to impulsive actions. However, evidence is inconsistent, and these models do not account for individual differences or differentiate between adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking. More recent theories seek to address these limitations; yet most evidence relies on self-report rather than neural measures of control and reward systems. This study explores cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between cognitive control and adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking in 15-35-year-olds assessed 2 to 4 years apart (n = 73). Cognitive control was assessed with behavioural and EEG (i.e., switch positivity) measures derived from a cued-trials task-switching paradigm. Risk Adjustment (i.e., adaptive risk-taking) and Impulsivity (i.e. maladaptive risk-taking) were measured using the Cambridge Gambling Task and Information Sampling Task, respectively. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine relationships between these measures, how they change over time, and the impact of age. Cognitive control and Impulsivity peaked in young adulthood. Risk Adjustment increased slightly over time, but not significantly, and not significantly differ by age. An increase Switch Positivity amplitude from Time 1 to Time 2 was associated with a decrease in Impulsivity, regardless of age. Initial cognitive control did not predict changes in Risk Adjustment or Impulsivity. These findings support models that emphasise individual variability in cognitive control as more accurate predictors of impulsive behaviour than age alone. They also highlight the need for consistent definitions of constructs, such as cognitive control, impulsivity, and risk-taking, across different measurement levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":50672,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","volume":" ","pages":"1630-1650"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13384997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-026-01420-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Risk-taking in young people is often attributed to a mismatch between slowly maturing cognitive control networks and overactive reward networks, leading to impulsive actions. However, evidence is inconsistent, and these models do not account for individual differences or differentiate between adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking. More recent theories seek to address these limitations; yet most evidence relies on self-report rather than neural measures of control and reward systems. This study explores cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships between cognitive control and adaptive and maladaptive risk-taking in 15-35-year-olds assessed 2 to 4 years apart (n = 73). Cognitive control was assessed with behavioural and EEG (i.e., switch positivity) measures derived from a cued-trials task-switching paradigm. Risk Adjustment (i.e., adaptive risk-taking) and Impulsivity (i.e. maladaptive risk-taking) were measured using the Cambridge Gambling Task and Information Sampling Task, respectively. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine relationships between these measures, how they change over time, and the impact of age. Cognitive control and Impulsivity peaked in young adulthood. Risk Adjustment increased slightly over time, but not significantly, and not significantly differ by age. An increase Switch Positivity amplitude from Time 1 to Time 2 was associated with a decrease in Impulsivity, regardless of age. Initial cognitive control did not predict changes in Risk Adjustment or Impulsivity. These findings support models that emphasise individual variability in cognitive control as more accurate predictors of impulsive behaviour than age alone. They also highlight the need for consistent definitions of constructs, such as cognitive control, impulsivity, and risk-taking, across different measurement levels.

认知控制的神经和行为测量与青春期和青年期的适应性和不适应性冒险有关吗?
年轻人的冒险行为通常归因于缓慢成熟的认知控制网络和过度活跃的奖励网络之间的不匹配,导致冲动行为。然而,证据是不一致的,这些模型没有考虑到个体差异,也没有区分适应性和非适应性冒险行为。最近的理论试图解决这些限制;然而,大多数证据依赖于自我报告,而不是控制和奖励系统的神经测量。本研究探讨了15-35岁人群认知控制与适应性和不适应性冒险之间的横断面和纵向关系,评估间隔2 - 4年(n = 73)。认知控制通过行为和脑电图(即转换积极性)测量来评估,这些测量来自线索试验任务转换范式。风险调整(即适应性冒险)和冲动性(即不适应冒险)分别使用剑桥赌博任务和信息抽样任务进行测量。线性混合效应模型用于检查这些测量之间的关系,它们如何随时间变化,以及年龄的影响。认知控制和冲动在成年早期达到顶峰。随着时间的推移,风险调整略有增加,但不显著,年龄差异也不显著。从时间1到时间2,开关阳性幅度的增加与冲动性的降低有关,与年龄无关。最初的认知控制不能预测风险调整或冲动性的变化。这些发现支持了强调认知控制的个体差异比单独的年龄更准确地预测冲动行为的模型。他们还强调需要在不同的测量水平上对结构进行一致的定义,例如认知控制、冲动和冒险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.40%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience (CABN) offers theoretical, review, and primary research articles on behavior and brain processes in humans. Coverage includes normal function as well as patients with injuries or processes that influence brain function: neurological disorders, including both healthy and disordered aging; and psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. CABN is the leading vehicle for strongly psychologically motivated studies of brain–behavior relationships, through the presentation of papers that integrate psychological theory and the conduct and interpretation of the neuroscientific data. The range of topics includes perception, attention, memory, language, problem solving, reasoning, and decision-making; emotional processes, motivation, reward prediction, and affective states; and individual differences in relevant domains, including personality. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience is a publication of the Psychonomic Society.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书