Failure to retreat: Blunted sensitivity to negative feedback supports risky behavior in adolescents

Abstract

Decision-making processes rarely occur in isolation. Rather, representations are updated constantly based on feedback to past decisions and actions. However, previous research has focused on the reaction to feedback receipt itself, instead of examining how feedback information is integrated into future decisions. In the current study, we examined differential neural sensitivity during risk decisions following positive versus negative feedback in a risk-taking context, and how this differential sensitivity is linked to adolescent risk behavior. Fifty-eight adolescents (ages 13–17 years) completed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) during an fMRI session and reported on their levels of risk-taking behavior. Results show that reduced medial PFC (mPFC) response following negative versus positive feedback is associated with fewer reductions in task-based risky decisions following negative feedback, as well as increased self-reported risk-taking behavior. These results suggest that reduced neural integration of negative feedback into during future decisions supports risky behavior, perhaps by discounting negative relative to positive feedback information when making subsequent risky decisions.

Not Doomed to Repeat: Enhanced Medial Prefrontal Cortex Tracking of Errors Promotes Adaptive Behavior during Adolescence

“…Specifically, when looking at go trials that follow increasing FA errors, adolescents show increased neural tracking in the mPFC, a region previously implicated in the integration of explicit feedback (van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2014; McCormick & Telzer, 2017b). This novel finding suggests that some of the same neural systems that support integration of explicit feedback (van Noordt & Segalowitz, 2012; van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; McCormick & Telzer, 2017b) are similarly involved in learning from self-generated, implicit feedback information. Adolescents also showed increased tracking in the amygdala and hippocampus, structures involved in learning from negative information (Walker & Davis, 2002; Sigurdsson et al, 2007; Ruediger et al, 2012).…”

“…Galván, 2013; see Telzer, 2016) and potentially less sensitive to negative feedback (e.g. Ernst et al, 2005; McCormick & Telzer, 2017b). Furthermore, compared with children, adolescents show an increased ability to use feedback information to guide their learning and subsequent behavior (Peters et al, 2016; McCormick & Telzer, 2017a).…”

“…Peters et al, 2014, 2016), the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is a key hub for goal representations and feedback integration into ongoing behavioral decisions in adults (van Noordt & Segalowitz, 2012) and adolescents (van Duijvenvorde et al, 2014; McCormick & Telzer, 2017b), and is involved in monitoring error commission during behavioral performance (Rubia et al, 2003). The mPFC is well-positioned as an integration hub for feedback information, sharing important structural and functional connections with the anterior cingulate cortex (Supekar et al, 2010), amygdala (Phelps et al, 2004; Gee et al, 2013), and ventral striatum (Schwarz et al, 2007; van den Bos et al, 2012).…”

“…The mPFC is well-positioned as an integration hub for feedback information, sharing important structural and functional connections with the anterior cingulate cortex (Supekar et al, 2010), amygdala (Phelps et al, 2004; Gee et al, 2013), and ventral striatum (Schwarz et al, 2007; van den Bos et al, 2012). Furthermore, mPFC reactivity, especially in the mid-dorsal portion of the mPFC (medial BA 8/9) located between the dorsomedial PFC and the ventromedial PFC, in response to positive (van Duijvenvorde et al, 2014) and negative (McCormick & Telzer, 2017b) feedback predicts behavioral performance in a risk-taking context, suggesting that the information integrated in the mPFC during decision-making is important for future behavior.…”

“…The majority of prior examinations of feedback learning during adolescence employ direct and explicit feedback from the task environment (e.g., van Duijvenvoorde et al, 2008; Peters et al, 2016; McCormick & Telzer, 2017b), where participants’ behavior is extrinsically rewarded or punished based on their success or failure. While a reasonably simple and direct way to examine feedback-related learning, this approach may represent an over-simplified model of how feedback guides learning and behavior in real life.…”