Neural heterogeneity underlying late adolescent motivational processing is linked to individual differences in behavioral sensation seeking

Abstract

Adolescent risk-taking, including sensation seeking (SS), is often attributed to developmental changes in connectivity among brain regions implicated in cognitive control and reward processing. Despite considerable scientific and popular interest in this neurodevelopmental framework, there are few empirical investigations of adolescent functional connectivity, let alone examinations of its links to SS behavior. The studies that have been done focus on mean-based approaches and leave unanswered questions about individual differences in neurodevelopment and behavior. The goal of this paper is to take a person-specific approach to the study of adolescent functional connectivity during a continuous motivational state, and to examine links between connectivity and self-reported SS behavior in 104 adolescents (M Age = 19.3; SD Age = 1.3).Using Group Iterative Multiple Model Estimation (GIMME), person-specific connectivity during two neuroimaging runs of a monetary incentive delay task was estimated among 12 a priori brain regions of interest representing reward, cognitive, and salience networks. Two data-driven subgroups were detected, a finding that was consistent between both neuroimaging runs, but associations with SS were only found in the first run, potentially reflecting neural habituation in the second run. Specifically, the subgroup that had unique connections between reward-related regions had greater SS and showed a distinctive relation between connectivity strength in the reward regions and SS. These findings provide novel evidence for heterogeneity in adolescent brain-behavior relations by showing that subsets of adolescents have unique associations between neural motivational processing and SS. Findings have broader implications for future work on reward processing, as they demonstrate that brain-behavior relations may attenuate across runs.

Dual-systems models of the genetic architecture of impulsive personality traits: neurogenetic evidence of distinct but related factors

“…As such, the present study provides further evidence supporting this criticism consistent with structural neuroimaging studies demonstrating that relations between bottom-up constructs and subcortical structural volume have been mixed and of generally small effect (Holmes et al, 2016;Owens et al, 2020;. Notably, functional neuroimaging studies of bottom-up constructs have reported unique patterns of connectivity across frontostriatal pathways (Burnette et al, 2019;Demidenko, Huntley, Weigard, Keating, & Beltz, 2022;Hawes et al, 2017;Um, Hummer, & Cyders, 2020;Zhu, Cortes, Mathur, Tomasi, & Momenan, 2017), suggesting that assessment of coordinated corticalsubcortical activity may help with further refinement of dualsystems models and their measurement. In aggregate, study findings suggest that further refinement and validation of dualsystems constructs from neuroimaging and genetic perspectives is needed, though the consistency of some findings reported here with prior research highlight the promise of this approach.…”

A multi-sample evaluation of the measurement structure and function of the modified monetary incentive delay task in adolescents

“…A second explanation for the lack of support for theoretical framework may be that the covariation may be present at a more granular level, specifically, at the voxel or ROI time-series data. However, in an independent analysis of the AHRB MID data ( Demidenko, Huntley et al, 2022 ), no evidence is reported for group or subgroup paths in combined and run specific time-series that demonstrate model specified (group iterative multiple model estimation) covariation between the bilateral insula and ventral striatum ROIs.…”

Dual-systems models of the genetic architecture of impulsive personality traits: Neurogenetic evidence of distinct but related factors

“…In the current study, all dual-systems constructs were uncorrelated with subcortical structural volume. While prior evidence of associations between bottom-up constructs and subcortical structural volume has been limited to mixed findings of generally small effect (e.g., Holmes et al, 2016;Owens et al, 2020Owens et al, , 2022, functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated a wider range of findings including unique patterns of connectivity across frontostriatal pathways (Burnette et al, 2019;Demidenko, Huntley, Weigard, Keating, & Beltz, 2022;Hawes et al, 2017;Um, Hummer, & Cyders, 2020;Zhu, Cortes, Mathur, Tomasi, & Momenan, 2017). In aggregate, current study findings suggest further research validating bottom-up constructs from neuroimaging and genetic perspectives is needed, though the consistency reported here with prior research and ongoing efforts to increase neuroimaging sample sizes highlight the promise of this approach (Marek et al, 2022).…”