Table 2.

Table outlining studies that investigated developmental differences in learning and decision-making with volatile outcomes

Author (yr)	Task type	Task details	Age group (N)	Parameters*	Performance / accuracy	fMRI
Bruckner et al. (2020)	Predictive inference	Helicopter task (Nassar et al., 2016) with variability and change points in two versions.	Children: 8-10 (N = 33) Adolescents: 12-17 (N = 29) Young adults: 20-28 (N = 32) Older adults: 62-80 (N = 35) 2nd study: Children: 7-11 (N = 31) Young adults: 20-28 (N = 25) Older adults: 61-76 (N = 34)	Learning rate: children & older adults < adolescents and younger adults Inverse temperature: NA	Children and older adults vs. adolescents and adults made more errors. Children and older adults did not differ; adolescents and younger adults did not differ.	No
Eckstein et al. (2022)	Probabilistic (reward) reversal learning	Choice between one of two boxes that contained the coin. The box where the coin appeared switched unpredictably: volatility. Correct location did not always provide coins: stochasticity. Correct location was rewarded 75%; incorrect location was never rewarded. Outcome was either gain or no gain. 120 trials, 5-9 switches.	Children and adolescents: 8-18 (N = 179) Adults: 18-30 (N = 112)	Positive learning rate: largest in adults Negative learning rate: smallest in adolescents Inverse temperature: Increased monotonically with age	Peak performance for 13-15 y/o.	No
Hauser et al. (2015)	Probabilistic reversal learning	Two stimuli were presented. Reversals occurred after a minimum of 6 correct responses – 3 consecutive correct responses. Correct choices rewarded 80% of the time; incorrect rewarded 20%. Outcomes were either loss or gain.	Adolescents: 12-16 (N = 19) Adults: 20-19 (N =17)	Positive learning rate: No significant difference Negative learning rate: adolescents > adults Inverse temperature: No difference	No performance differences.	Yes
Javadi et al. (2014)	Probabilistic reversal learning	Two stimuli were presented. Probabilities reversed after at least 4 consecutive correct responses with a probability of 0.25. 120 trials, two stimuli. Correct stimulus led to a reward (+20 cents) 70% of the time, and a loss (−20 cents) 30% of the time. The wrong stimulus led to a reward (+20 cents) 40% of the time and loss (−20 cents) 60% of the time.	Adolescents: 14-15 (N = 219) Adults: 20-39 (N = 29)	Learning rate: No difference; Inverse temperature: adults > adolescents	No performance differences.	Yes
van der Schaaf et al. (2011)	Deterministic reversal learning	Two stimuli, a face and a scene, were presented vertically, each associated with either reward or punishment. One stimulus was highlighted, the participants reported whether this would be associated with reward or punishment. Reward was a green smiley, “+100 euro” sign and a high-frequency jingle tone; punishment was a red sad smiley, “−100 euro” sign, and a low-frequency tone. Outcomes did not depend on participants’ responses. Reversals occurred after 4, 5, or 6 correct responses.	Children: 10-11 (N = 13) Younger adolescents: 13-14 (N = 14) Older adolescents: 16-17 (N = 15) Adults: 20-25 (N = 16)	NA	Overall, children performed worse vs. older age groups, no difference between adolescents and adults. In reversal trials, peak performance was in adolescence (13–17 y/o).	No
Waltmann et al. (2023)	Probabilistic reversal learning	Two contexts: winning rewards, avoiding loss. Binary choices between two cards: the cards are associated with different probabilities of winning (+10 cents) or not winning (±0 cents) (80%-20%) in the win block and of losing (−10 cents) or not losing (±0 cents) in the loss block. Five reversals after the initial acquisition phase.	Adolescents: 12-18 (N = 40) Adults: 19-45 (N = 55)	Learning rate: no difference Positive reinforcement sensitivity: adults > adolescents Negative reinforcement sensitivity: no difference Inverse temperature: NA	No difference overall; adolescents tended to perform worse than adults on a few trials before reversal and better on a few trials after reversal.	Yes
Weiss et al. (2021)	Probabilistic reversal learning	Two stimuli were shown. Received positive feedback after correct choice with 75% and negative feedback with 25% probability. After reaching a learning criterion, these reversed. Learning criterion was to complete at least 6-10 trials and respond correctly on three consecutive trials.	Children: 8-12 (N = 28) Adolescents: 13-17 (N = 25)	Learning rate: adolescents > children; Inverse temperature: No difference	Children vs. adolescents made more errors.	No

*Where results regarding parameters are entered as nonapplicable (NA), either the studies did not employ computational models or the fitted models did not include these parameters. Where the analyses related to a given parameter were not reported in the papers, the parameter values were entered as “not reported” in the table. Mean (or median) values of parameters are reported in Supplementary Table S3