Response to: ''the triadic model perspective for the study of adolescent motivated behavior''.
Response to: ''the triadic model perspective for the study of adolescent motivated behavior''.
复制标题
回应：“青少年动机行为研究的三元模型视角”。
DOI：
10.1016/j.bandc.2014.01.003
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Skwara,AleaC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Somerville,LeahH;vandenBulk,BiancaG;Skwara,AleaC
恩斯特和他的同事们的三合一模型是大脑发育的基础理论，提出了青春期大脑功能和伴随生命这一阶段的情绪变化之间的关键联系。三合一框架不仅成为发育神经科学领域的“现代经典”，而且在激发有关神经发育、脑功能和青少年行为之间关系的实证研究方面具有很大的影响力。它对该领域的重要性是无可争议的。三联模型提出，青少年的情绪导向行为部分源于三个相互作用的神经系统功能特性的关键发育转变：以纹状体为中心的接近系统、以杏仁核为中心的回避系统和以前额叶皮层为中心的控制系统。事实上，这些大脑结构的功能特性在青少年动机和情感行为的转变中起着关键作用，这得到了广泛的经验语料库的支持。然而，认知神经科学的最新进展是否可以让我们重新考虑结构-功能三分法？自从最初的三合一模型被提出以来（Ernst, Pine, & Hardin, 2006），一波认知神经科学研究促使人们对包括杏仁核和纹状体在内的皮层下结构的功能有了更复杂、以过程为导向的观点。尽管杏仁核被经典地定义为一个介导逃避行为的恐惧模块，但当代的研究表明，杏仁核的反应更能通过情绪显著性来预测，而不是通过给定的效价类别（Costafreda, Brammer, David, & Fu, 2007）。同样，纹状体作为一个奖励模块的早期描述已经得到扩展，以强调纹状体在编码信息的奖励属性方面的关键作用，而且在食欲和厌恶环境中也具有期望（Pagnoni, Zink, Montague, & Berns, 2002） （Delgado, Li, Schiller, & Phelps, 2008）。这些和其他的发现促使理论从对大脑有价值的情绪中心的模块化观点（Lindquist, Wager, Kober, Bliss-Moreau, & Barrett, 2012）转向强调这些系统对显著性和可预测性刺激维度的敏感性。计算方法的最新进展强调了功能主义观点，即情感输入（接近和回避线索）调用学习机制，将环境线索与积极和消极结果联系起来，从而支持情感引导行为。有趣的是，杏仁核和纹状体在学习中的作用是互补的，但又不同（Murray, 2007）。虽然杏仁体和纹状体在促进情绪引导的学习中都发挥着相互作用，但杏仁体的反应最好通过联想学习计算来解释，而纹状体信号则被调整为预测误差——预测结果与实际结果之间的差异（Li, Schiller, Schoenbaum, Phelps, & Daw, 2011）。因此，杏仁核和纹状体的功能超越了检测食欲和厌恶的线索，以复杂的方式指导情绪学习。重要的是，上述观点与经验证据一致，表明青少年的情绪引导行为（如冒险和情绪不稳定）可能部分源于杏仁核和纹状体的敏感化。Cohen等人（2010）报告了青少年纹状体中夸大的积极预测错误信号，这可能有助于放大积极结果对学习的影响，促进冒险行为。虽然推测……
The triadic model by Ernst and colleagues is a foundational theory of brain development that proposes key linkages between adolescent brain function and emotional changes that accompany this phase of the lifespan. Not only has the triadic framework become a ‘modern classic’in the field of developmental neuroscience, it has been highly influential in motivating empirical inquiry concerning the relationships between neurodevelopment, brain function, and adolescent behavior. Its importance to the field is undisputable. The triadic model proposes that adolescent emotion-guided behavior arises, in part, from key developmental shifts in the functional properties of three interacting neural systems: an approach system centered in the striatum, an avoidance system centered in the amygdala, and a control system centered in the prefrontal cortex. Indeed, the functional properties of these brain structures play a key role in shifts in adolescent motivated and emotional behavior, as supported by a broad empirical corpus. However, might recent advances in cognitive neuroscience warrant reconsideration of the proposed structure–function trichotomy? Since the original triadic model was put forth (Ernst, Pine, & Hardin, 2006), a wave of cognitive neuroscientific research has motivated a more complex, process-oriented view of the function of subcortical structures including the amygdala and striatum. Whereas the amygdala was classically conceptualized as a fear module that mediates avoidance behavior, contemporary work has demonstrated that amygdala responding is better predicted by emotional salience than by a given valence category (Costafreda, Brammer, David, & Fu, 2007). Similarly, early accounts of the striatum as a reward module have been expanded upon to highlight the key role of the striatum in coding not just reward properties of information, but of expectancy (Pagnoni, Zink, Montague, & Berns, 2002) in both appetitive and aversive contexts (Delgado, Li, Schiller, & Phelps, 2008). These and other findings have motivated theoretical shifts away from a modular view of valenced emotion centers of the brain (Lindquist, Wager, Kober, Bliss-Moreau, & Barrett, 2012) and toward a view that emphasizes the sensitivity of these systems to stimulus dimensions of salience and predictability. Recent advances in computational approaches have emphasized a functionalist perspective whereby emotion inputs–approach and avoidance cues–invoke learning mechanisms that associate environmental cues with positive and negative outcomes, which in turn support emotion-guided behavior. Interestingly, the proposed roles for the amygdala and striatum in learning are complimentary but distinct (Murray, 2007). While both the amygdala and striatum play interactive roles in facilitating emotion-guided learning, the amygdala response is best explained by associative learning computations whereas the striatum signal is tuned to prediction errors–discrepancies between predicted and actual outcomes (Li, Schiller, Schoenbaum, Phelps, & Daw, 2011). Thus, amygdala and striatal function stretches beyond detecting appetitive and aversive cues to guide emotional learning in complex ways. Importantly, the perspective sketched above remains compatible with empirical evidence suggesting that adolescent emotionguided behaviors (such as risk-taking and emotional lability) may result, in part, from sensitization of the amygdala and striatum. Cohen et al.(2010) reported exaggerated positive prediction error signaling in the adolescent striatum, which could serve to amplify the strength of positive outcomes on learning, facilitating risk-taking behavior. Though speculative …