Considerations for imaging the adolescent brain

Abstract

In recent years the number of functional neuroimaging studies on adolescence has exploded. These studies have led to important new insights about the relation between functional brain development and behavior. However, special consideration is warranted when working with adolescents. In this review, we review variables, including pubertal stage, sleep patterns and pregnancy, which are particularly relevant for developmental cognitive neuroscience studies involving adolescents. Consideration of the unique challenges associated with adolescence will help the growing field of developmental neuroimaging standardize procedures and will eventually facilitate interpretation across studies.

Revising the BIS/BAS Scale to study development: Measurement invariance and normative effects of age and sex from childhood through adulthood.

“…Such ‘inverted U-shaped’ patterns have been seen in previous studies of BIS/BAS sensitivity where BAS levels increased over early/late adolescence (9-17 years), peaked in young adulthood (18-23 years), and then declined (Urosevic, Collins, Muetzel, Lim, & Luciana, 2012). Developmental neuroimaging studies also highlight an ‘inverted U-shaped’ trajectory in striatal response to reward; however, the age groups investigated and the age ranges defining ‘adolescence’ and ‘adulthood’ are quite variable in this literature (for commentary, see Galvan, Van Leijenhorst, & McGlennen, 2012; Luna, Velanova, & Geier, 2010; Richards et al, 2013). Specifically, the age range that we define as young adulthood (18-22 years) most often is not included in these studies or is combined with a much larger adult age range (e.g., 18-30 years).…”

Neuroimaging of the developing brain

“…The brains in question are smaller, with less imaging contrast, and possess other unique methodological considerations for imaging protocols (Luna et al 2010). Though, neuroimaging studies also find ample evidence that adolescence is a period of continued neural development (Blakemore 2012), here, too, demographic, educational, and other factors are important elements for any investigation (Galvan et al 2012). To be vexed by such problems belies, however, the enormous opportunity afforded by the examination of the brain as it grows, matures, and its functions refine and specialize (Luna et al 2010).…”

Reprint of: Minimizing noise in pediatric task-based functional MRI; Adolescents with developmental disabilities and typical development

“…The parent should be encouraged to voice any concerns or ask any clarifying questions that they need to inform themselves about the safety of their child. However, as Galvan et al (2012) point out, it is ill advised to rely on the parent's input too much at the expense of interacting with the child, in particular older children and adolescents; it is possible that the parent may not be aware of all of the adolescent participant's behaviors, attitudes, and feelings or that the adolescent may have, piercings and other medical issues that might preclude them from being scanned (for instance pregnancy, or an IUD in female participants). We find that children often have less fear associated with, and fewer preconceived notions about the scanner than adults, including a lower likelihood of negative association between scanners and urgent medical problems.…”

“…Therefore, even a fouryear age gap can represent a significant developmental span in children. An alternate approach to examining discrete age-groups is to add age as a continuous variable and examine children within wider age ranges (Galvan et al, 2012). If incentives are being used within the paradigm, either to encourage optimal performance, or as the object of study (measuring response to incentives themselves), the incentives utilized should be developmentally appropriate (Luking et al, 2016;Sulzer-Azaroff, 1988, 1995).…”