Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Cohort groups in higher education have been established in response to the demographic shifts that have occurred with greater proportions of adult students and students who work off-campus. Cohort groups are defined as a group of students who begin coursework in a degree or certificate program together and who remain together for at least two-thirds of the classes in the program. This cohort learning study compared the learning outcomes of students in 12 matched groups, 6 representing degree programs scheduled in traditional, non-cohort formats and 6 representing the same degrees at the same institutions but in cohort formats. The institutions represented three large public research universities, one private research institution, and one private comprehensive institution. From a total of 353 students surveyed, usable response data came from 287. Learning outcomes were measured by grade point averages and the results of a student self-survey. Comparison between all cohort and non-cohort groups showed slightly higher cohort student learning on affective, cognitive, and learning transfer dimensions. Overall, there were more similarities than differences in learning outcomes between the cohort and non-cohort students surveyed. One figure and seven tables of data are appended. (Contains 25 references.) (JLS)

The use of cooperative learning at the college level was studied by investigating whether different instructor intervention approaches would affect the achievement of college students using cooperative learning methods. Subjects were 97 undergraduate elementary education majors enrolled in three sections of a curriculum course at the University of South Florida (Tampa) College of Education during the second semester of the 1990-91 academic year. Nineteen learning teams were formed and randomly assigned to treatment conditions as follows: (1) directions and materials provided, but no instructor assistance (control group); (2) instructors provided advance organizers; and (3) instructors met with groups after sessions to answer questions and provide assistance. All treatment groups read the same materials and followed a similar schedule of activities. A pretest was followed by a posttest and an attitude questionnaire after the 2-week period. On the posttest, the control and follow-up discussion groups had nearly identical mean scores, with the mean for the advance organizer group more than two points higher. Students liked the cooperative learning situation, believed they learned the materials well, and preferred instructor assistance to the control condition. Results suggest that advance organizers may yield greater learning than do follow-up discussions. Five tables present study findings, and a 17-item list of references is included. (SLD)

Blended learning can facilitate many opportunities about usage of online discussion for different purposes. As a tool in blended learning, online discussions widen the walls of classroom discussions in a virtual manner. Especially, in teacher education programs case based discussions are very helpful for pre-service teachers to practice real-life situations. By this way, the link between theory and practice can be established. This study aims to examine the pre-service teachers' experiences about three different discussion structures in a case based blended learning environment. This study also explored their thoughts toward the effects of online discussion on their professional development and their suggestions to increase the effectiveness of online discussion. The participants of this study were 14 pre-service teachers from the department of Early Childhood Education (ECE) of a funded university. The six open-ended questions were asked in order to explore the opinions of the pre-service teachers. The qualitative data were analyzed through the matrix displays. (Contains 1 figure.)

This study investigated the effect of using differentiated instruction by integrating multiple intelligences and learning styles on solving problems, achievement in, and attitudes towards math in six graders with learning disabilities in cooperative groups. A total of 60 students identified with LD were invited to participate. The sample was randomly divided into two groups; experimental (n = 30 boys) and control (n = 30 boys). ANCOVA and T.test were employed for data analysis. Findings from this study indicated the effectiveness of differentiated instruction by integrating multiple intelligences and learning styles on solving problems, achievement in, and attitudes towards math in the target students. On the basis of the findings, the study advocated for the effectiveness of using differentiated instruction by integrating multiple intelligences and learning styles on solving problems, achievement in, and attitudes towards math in learning disabled students.

Social loafing research has spanned several decades and fields of study. Research has provided support for both the existence of social loafing and its antecedents within the laboratory, classroom, and work place. Studies regarding the perceptions of social loafing and its effects in the online learning environment, however, are largely non-existent. This study surveyed 227 online learning students who were participating in online learning groups. The study seeks to determine whether the perception of social loafing exists within online learning groups. In addition, several psychosocial factors identified in face-to-face environments are analyzed to determine their impact in online learning groups. Evidence supports both the perception of social loafing in online learning groups as well as similarities between social loafing antecedents in face-to-face groups and those in the online learning environment. (Contains 2 tables.)

Social loafing research has spanned several decades and fields of study. Research has provided support for both the existence of social loafing and its antecedents within the laboratory, classroom, and work place. Studies regarding the perceptions of social loafing and its effects in the online learning environment, however, are largely non-existent. This study surveyed 227 online learning students who were participating in online learning groups. The study seeks to determine whether the perception of social loafing exists within online learning groups. In addition, several psychosocial factors identified in face-to-face environments are analyzed to determine their impact in online learning groups. Evidence supports both the perception of social loafing in online learning groups as well as similarities between social loafing antecedents in face-to-face groups and those in the online learning environment. (Contains 2 tables.)

This article is from PLoS Computational Biology , volume 10 . Abstract Learning has been studied extensively in the context of isolated individuals. However, many organisms are social and consequently make decisions both individually and as part of a collective. Reaching consensus necessarily means that a single option is chosen by the group, even when there are dissenting opinions. This decision-making process decouples the otherwise direct relationship between animals' preferences and their experiences (the outcomes of decisions). Instead, because an individual's learned preferences influence what others experience, and therefore learn about, collective decisions couple the learning processes between social organisms. This introduces a new, and previously unexplored, dynamical relationship between preference, action, experience and learning. Here we model collective learning within animal groups that make consensus decisions. We reveal how learning as part of a collective results in behavior that is fundamentally different from that learned in isolation, allowing grouping organisms to spontaneously (and indirectly) detect correlations between group members' observations of environmental cues, adjust strategy as a function of changing group size (even if that group size is not known to the individual), and achieve a decision accuracy that is very close to that which is provably optimal, regardless of environmental contingencies. Because these properties make minimal cognitive demands on individuals, collective learning, and the capabilities it affords, may be widespread among group-living organisms. Our work emphasizes the importance and need for theoretical and experimental work that considers the mechanism and consequences of learning in a social context.

This article is from PLoS Computational Biology , volume 10 . Abstract Learning has been studied extensively in the context of isolated individuals. However, many organisms are social and consequently make decisions both individually and as part of a collective. Reaching consensus necessarily means that a single option is chosen by the group, even when there are dissenting opinions. This decision-making process decouples the otherwise direct relationship between animals' preferences and their experiences (the outcomes of decisions). Instead, because an individual's learned preferences influence what others experience, and therefore learn about, collective decisions couple the learning processes between social organisms. This introduces a new, and previously unexplored, dynamical relationship between preference, action, experience and learning. Here we model collective learning within animal groups that make consensus decisions. We reveal how learning as part of a collective results in behavior that is fundamentally different from that learned in isolation, allowing grouping organisms to spontaneously (and indirectly) detect correlations between group members' observations of environmental cues, adjust strategy as a function of changing group size (even if that group size is not known to the individual), and achieve a decision accuracy that is very close to that which is provably optimal, regardless of environmental contingencies. Because these properties make minimal cognitive demands on individuals, collective learning, and the capabilities it affords, may be widespread among group-living organisms. Our work emphasizes the importance and need for theoretical and experimental work that considers the mechanism and consequences of learning in a social context.

This article is from PLoS Computational Biology , volume 10 . Abstract Learning has been studied extensively in the context of isolated individuals. However, many organisms are social and consequently make decisions both individually and as part of a collective. Reaching consensus necessarily means that a single option is chosen by the group, even when there are dissenting opinions. This decision-making process decouples the otherwise direct relationship between animals' preferences and their experiences (the outcomes of decisions). Instead, because an individual's learned preferences influence what others experience, and therefore learn about, collective decisions couple the learning processes between social organisms. This introduces a new, and previously unexplored, dynamical relationship between preference, action, experience and learning. Here we model collective learning within animal groups that make consensus decisions. We reveal how learning as part of a collective results in behavior that is fundamentally different from that learned in isolation, allowing grouping organisms to spontaneously (and indirectly) detect correlations between group members' observations of environmental cues, adjust strategy as a function of changing group size (even if that group size is not known to the individual), and achieve a decision accuracy that is very close to that which is provably optimal, regardless of environmental contingencies. Because these properties make minimal cognitive demands on individuals, collective learning, and the capabilities it affords, may be widespread among group-living organisms. Our work emphasizes the importance and need for theoretical and experimental work that considers the mechanism and consequences of learning in a social context.

Open Networked Learning is an open online professional development course for educators in higher education who wish to investigate and discuss the design and teaching of collaborative online courses. The course is organised in a unique partnership between 14 institutions in six countries and is both an institutional professional development course and an arena for virtual exchange between educators from different cultures, institutions and disciplines. This chapter describes how the course successfully implements problem-based learning in facilitated groups in an online environment. The course employs a multi-layered approach to openness and allows learners to participate on three levels: as part of the course community, within the problem-based learning group and with individual reflection in a learning blog. This chapter examines the opportunities and challenges that have arisen and points to possible solutions.

Open Networked Learning is an open online professional development course for educators in higher education who wish to investigate and discuss the design and teaching of collaborative online courses. The course is organised in a unique partnership between 14 institutions in six countries and is both an institutional professional development course and an arena for virtual exchange between educators from different cultures, institutions and disciplines. This chapter describes how the course successfully implements problem-based learning in facilitated groups in an online environment. The course employs a multi-layered approach to openness and allows learners to participate on three levels: as part of the course community, within the problem-based learning group and with individual reflection in a learning blog. This chapter examines the opportunities and challenges that have arisen and points to possible solutions.

Open Networked Learning is an open online professional development course for educators in higher education who wish to investigate and discuss the design and teaching of collaborative online courses. The course is organised in a unique partnership between 14 institutions in six countries and is both an institutional professional development course and an arena for virtual exchange between educators from different cultures, institutions and disciplines. This chapter describes how the course successfully implements problem-based learning in facilitated groups in an online environment. The course employs a multi-layered approach to openness and allows learners to participate on three levels: as part of the course community, within the problem-based learning group and with individual reflection in a learning blog. This chapter examines the opportunities and challenges that have arisen and points to possible solutions.

This study investigated congruence in ego stage and group relevant aspects of teachers' and learners' personalities, and between their preferences for and perceptions of group work and emotionality behaviors, as related to learners' learning achievement and to teacher and student satisfaction with learning group membership. Subjects (130 learners and seven teachers) were given the Ideal Group and Self-Description questionnaires, and measures of perception and satisfaction; each teacher also constructed a test of terminal student proficiency. Overall evidence from analysis of the ego-stage dyadic congruency, the group-relevant congruency, and the preference and perception congruency variables in association with teacher and learner satisfaction and learning achievement, did not form any assumptions as to their predictive relationships. The data did reveal some strength by the ego-stage dyadic congruency variable, especially in association with the dependent variables of learner achievement. Supplemental analysis of the eight ego stages indicated that teacher-learner dyadic congruency was not significantly related to learner satisfaction. Reasons for the findings were suggested, along with wider implications. Thesis is available from University Microfilms. (LY)

A survey of informal learning among 318 teachers and HRD professionals was conducted. Analysis of the data found that teachers rely to a greater extent on interactive informal learning activities while HRD professionals rely to a greater extent on independent learning activities. Data analysis also found that six environmental factors inhibit engagement in informal learning and seven personal characteristics enhance motivation to participate in informal learning. Implications for HRD theory, research, and practice are discussed. (Contains 1 table.)

This multi-method study explored how children conceptualize emergent leadership in collaborative learning groups, and whether emergent leadership was associated with student achievement motivation. Fourth and fifth grade students participated in a collaborative math activity. After the group math task, 294 students were surveyed on their achievement orientation and emergence of leadership. Within their learning groups, a subset of 18 students was individually interviewed. The interview data revealed that elementary school- aged children are aware of the emergence of leadership in collaborative learning groups, describing leadership behaviors in two domains: task-focused and relationship-focused. The survey data revealed that while task-focused leadership was only associated with performance goal orientations. Relationships-focused leadership was associated with both mastery and performance goals, though the association was stronger with mastery goals. Taken together, this study shows the importance of including emergent leadership in the study of collaborative learning groups. (Contains 39 references.) (Author)

This multi-method study explored how children conceptualize emergent leadership in collaborative learning groups, and whether emergent leadership was associated with student achievement motivation. Fourth and fifth grade students participated in a collaborative math activity. After the group math task, 294 students were surveyed on their achievement orientation and emergence of leadership. Within their learning groups, a subset of 18 students was individually interviewed. The interview data revealed that elementary school- aged children are aware of the emergence of leadership in collaborative learning groups, describing leadership behaviors in two domains: task-focused and relationship-focused. The survey data revealed that while task-focused leadership was only associated with performance goal orientations. Relationships-focused leadership was associated with both mastery and performance goals, though the association was stronger with mastery goals. Taken together, this study shows the importance of including emergent leadership in the study of collaborative learning groups. (Contains 39 references.) (Author)

The majority of studies investigating individual versus small group achievement within the computer-based training (CBT) framework have found no significant differences between the two experimental groups. Some studies produced significantly positive results, but no study produced significantly negative results. However, one would expect groups to outperform individuals. After reviewing the small group CBT literature, this paper suggests that in past studies, the behavior of the students in the small groups has not been appropriately structured. Based on related traditional instruction research, it appears that guiding students' behavior/discussions following CBT may increase achievement. A reciprocal peer-questioning model is proposed to provide this type of guidance. This model is briefly described and research is suggested. Implications of this model for distance learning are also provided.

Isolated from other professionals, teachers and their practice are embedded within a hierarchical system in which the day-to-day activities are governed by external forces: administrative mandates, parental request, and currently, legislative directives. One issue facing teachers today and about which their voices are infrequently heard is that of culture, and the growing diversity of the pupil population of the United States. This diversity stands in contrast to a notable lack of apparent diversity in the teaching force. This paper is about teacher study groups as activity settings where teachers might break free of that isolation and engage in powerful learning about culture and literacy. The paper reports on research conducted from 1995 through 1997 on two study group contexts for teacher learning--one focused on exploring culture, literacy, and autobiography through a master's course, and a subsequent voluntary book club called the Literary Circle, which continued for two years. The paper states that the study of the activity settings and participants' conversations in the course and the book club led to the theorizing about the meaning of "sustain" and "sustainable" when referring to teacher development in study groups. It first describes the research into the two study groups, as well as the underlying rationale for the thematic focus and value placed on conversations within the study group. It then shifts focus to a discussion of sustainability in light of the groups' described activities and subsequent initiatives. (Contains 27 references.) (NKA)

Collaborative learning in an online classroom can take the form of discussion among the whole class or within smaller groups. This paper addresses the latter, examining first whether assessment makes a difference to the level of learner participation and then considering other factors involved in creating effective collaborative learning groups. Data collected over a three year period (15 cohorts) from the Foundations course in the Master of Distance Education (MDE) program offered jointly by University of Maryland University College (UMUC) and the University of Oldenburg does not support the authors' original hypothesis that assessment makes a significant difference to learner participation levels in small group learning projects and leads them to question how much emphasis should be placed on grading work completed in study groups to the exclusion of other strategies. Drawing on observations of two MDE courses, including the Foundations course, their extensive online teaching experience, and a review of the literature, the authors identify factors other than grading that contribute positively to the effectiveness of small collaborative learning groups in the online environment. In particular, the paper focuses on specific instructional strategies that facilitate learner participation in small group projects, which result in an enhanced sense of community, increased skill acquisition, and better learning outcomes. (Contains 2 figures and 1 table.)

This report presents conceptual frameworks for inclusive learning, good practices in learning cities and recommendations for the future. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on life in cities, as well as exposing and exacerbating almost all forms of inequality. Access to high-calibre, resilient infrastructure, reliable basic services and decent jobs must be provided to all urban and rural dwellers. Achieving this means ensuring learning opportunities in cities are of high quality, inclusive of the diverse backgrounds of all learners and offered on a continuous basis throughout life. This publication features chapters on learning cities' endeavours to promote inclusive lifelong learning for vulnerable groups. It is based on research papers prepared for the fourth International Conference on Learning Cities, which took place in 2019 in Medellín, Colombia, under the theme 'Inclusion -- A principle for lifelong learning and sustainable cities' and hence marks a transition between the learning city conferences of 2019 and 2021. Though the examples included in the publication were in place before the pandemic took hold, they show how populations that were made even more vulnerable by the pandemic can be effectively targeted by lifelong learning opportunities.

Human language and cognition do not develop independently of each other but are intricately intertwined in various ways. This contribution presents the interplay between linguistic and cognitive abilities of learners at the individual level and relates them to the level of external contextual factors in social and educational environments. In empirical research, it is important to differentiate between so-called proximal and distal external factors: A causal effect on the individual learner can be primarily assumed through the direct stimulation of proximal factors, i.e., in personal interaction (Proximity of Stimulation approach, Kersten 2020, 2023). Therefore, external factors should be differentiated and special attention should be given to the proximal factors as direct influencing factors in empirical studies. This contribution begins with some terminological clarifications. In the following section, the connections between individual linguistic and cognitive development are discussed using selected variables in both directions (internal perspective). Initially, findings regarding the influence of multilingualism on cognitive abilities are examined, followed by the influence of cognitive abilities on L2 acquisition in the reverse direction. Finally, the contribution focuses on external contextual factors. Findings on family contextual factors such as linguistic and social background are presented. Lastly, educational contextual factors are explored, particularly discussing whether and how instructional factors can contribute to creating conducive conditions for mutual development in both domains, cognition and language, and potentially compensating for disadvantaged learner groups (cf. Kersten 2019). [This is the translated version of originally published title "Der Zusammenhang von kognitiven Fähigkeiten und Mehrsprachigkeit im frühen L2-Erwerb: Individuelle und externe Variablen," which was published in: "Language Education and Acquisition Research: Focusing Early Language Learning," edited by H. Böttger et al., Klinkhardt, 2020, pp. 82-116.]

This action research examines how focused organization, group roles, and gender grouping impact student participation when working in a cooperative group setting. Fifty-two sixth graders were studied for a period of nine weeks. Results show when students are organized in their cooperative groups, there will be an increase in student participation. Participation also increased when students were given assigned roles. Lastly, this research shows that my hypothesis was incorrect by thinking participation would increase when students work in same gender cooperative groups. To come to these results, data was collected using a triangular approach focusing on observations, change in grades, and questionnaires. The following are appended: (1) Data Collection Matrix; (2) Teacher Observation Log: Focused Organization; (3) Focused Organization; (4) Teacher Observation Log: Group Roles; (5) Student Roles; (6) Group Roles; (7) Teacher Observation Log: Gender Grouping; and (8) Gender Grouping. (Contains 5 figures.)

This action research examines how focused organization, group roles, and gender grouping impact student participation when working in a cooperative group setting. Fifty-two sixth graders were studied for a period of nine weeks. Results show when students are organized in their cooperative groups, there will be an increase in student participation. Participation also increased when students were given assigned roles. Lastly, this research shows that my hypothesis was incorrect by thinking participation would increase when students work in same gender cooperative groups. To come to these results, data was collected using a triangular approach focusing on observations, change in grades, and questionnaires. The following are appended: (1) Data Collection Matrix; (2) Teacher Observation Log: Focused Organization; (3) Focused Organization; (4) Teacher Observation Log: Group Roles; (5) Student Roles; (6) Group Roles; (7) Teacher Observation Log: Gender Grouping; and (8) Gender Grouping. (Contains 5 figures.)

This action research examines how focused organization, group roles, and gender grouping impact student participation when working in a cooperative group setting. Fifty-two sixth graders were studied for a period of nine weeks. Results show when students are organized in their cooperative groups, there will be an increase in student participation. Participation also increased when students were given assigned roles. Lastly, this research shows that my hypothesis was incorrect by thinking participation would increase when students work in same gender cooperative groups. To come to these results, data was collected using a triangular approach focusing on observations, change in grades, and questionnaires. The following are appended: (1) Data Collection Matrix; (2) Teacher Observation Log: Focused Organization; (3) Focused Organization; (4) Teacher Observation Log: Group Roles; (5) Student Roles; (6) Group Roles; (7) Teacher Observation Log: Gender Grouping; and (8) Gender Grouping. (Contains 5 figures.)

This study investigated the impact of a sequence of social relationship activities on regard for classmates and teammates in middle school (grade 7) mathematics classes using cooperative learning. The sample consisted of 184 students (55% Hispanic American, 27% White, 14% Black, and 3% Asian American) in a city in Los Angeles County (California). Two teachers each taught three classes; each teacher taught two experimental treatment (cooperative learning) classes and one conventional (comparison) class. Activities were sequenced and related to the following stages of group development: (1) class-building; (2) preparation for group work/team-building; (3) communication; and (4) cooperation and helping behaviors. Students in experimental groups also received instruction in effective explaining and problem solving. Overall, the sequence of interventions was effective in increasing students' regard for one another. Class-building increased students' regard for classmates, and team-building and activities to prepare for group work were effective in increasing students' regard for teammates and cross-ethnic and cross-gender regard. The differences between classes demonstrate how cooperative learning can differ in practice even when teachers have the same instructions and students have the same activities. Statistical data are presented in 12 tables. A 33-item list of references is included. (SLD)

This exemplary case study describes the learning process of two sixth-graders that learn from an animated worked-out example and an accompanying self-explanation prompt in the domain of fractions. It is based on a corresponding field study. The analysis focuses on the interaction with the computer, the communication between the students, the metacognitive aspects of the learning process and self-explanations. Supported with quantitative data, the qualitative results show that worked-out examples are proper materials for learning in groups of two. Furthermore, it is shown that self-explanation prompts have positive effects on the learning process and the analysed aspects. With detailed scenes it is elucidated, how the interactive capabilities and the animations are used during the learning process. [For the complete proceedings, see ED597799.]

A form of group learning, cohorts, has become increasingly attractive to administrators, instructors, and participants in adult education. Basic academic skills cohort learning supports three types of knowing: instrumental, socializing, and self-authoring; whereas, in higher and adult education cohort learning, the development of critical reflection and knowledge construction is the focus. Cohort learners report such positive effects as increased critical thinking skills, greater individual development, enhanced knowledge base, and learning motivation. Some research has revealed that not all cohorts work well, due to characteristics and behaviors of group members. Actual measurement of cohort learning outcomes has been inadequately studied. Educators can enhance the cohort experience by doing the following: (1) developing group relationships at the beginning; (2) balancing group and individual development; (3) providing an environment that both supports and challenges; and 4) acknowledging and addressing group and individual tensions. (Contains 12 references.) (AJ)

This booklet describes the learning experiences that take place in and as a result of a learning laboratory. Part one presents a brief history of the group dynamics movement, focusing especially upon the history of the National Training Laboratory of the National Education Association. Some significant characteristics of laboratory learning are presented, along with important ground rules of training group activity. Also, a brief review of some relevant learning theories is included. Part two describes the group dynamics laboratory at Indiana State University, its background and development, the staff, the students, and the training sessions. Part three is a report of the findings of a 1973 follow-up study of former laboratory participants that was designed to ascertain if the stated purposes of the course were being accomplished and whether the learning designs had any lasting effects. Finally, the present state of the laboratory approach to learning is summarized in part four. A bibliography is also included. (Author/RC)

The Peer Review (PR) is a very popular technique to support socio-constructivist and connectivist learning processes, online or face-to-face, at all educational levels, in both formal and informal contexts. The idea behind this technique is that sharing views and opinions with others by discussing with peers and receiving and providing formative feedback enriches the quality of learning. In this study, a class of trainee teachers conducts an online PR. The resulting interactions are analyzed and evaluated by the researchers through the application of an evaluation model based on both quantitative and qualitative data. In particular, two conditions are studied, namely the PR in groups versus the PR in dyads. Results show that students who carried out the PR in groups were less active from the cognitive point of view, while they devoted more effort to deal with organizational matters and discourse facilitation.

Changes in the environment require constant adaptation to optimize future behavior. Learning through reinforcement is essential for adaptation in response to changes in the environment; such ability is thought to play a key role in human cognitive development as well as in the emergence and maintenance of psychiatric disorders, such as ADHD, depression or anxiety. Uncertainty and valence are considered to be two important factors for cognitive adaptation during reinforcement learning (RL). Clinical symptoms have been shown to modulate RL with respect to uncertainty and valence conditions, but little is known how psychopathology affects RL in clinically diagnosed compared to typically developing children and adolescents. In this study, we used a probabilistic learning task in which we experimentally manipulated uncertainty and valence levels. Uncertainty was manipulated by two uncertainty conditions, one which included stochasticity, and another which added volatility. Stochasticity or expected uncertainty refers to learning action-outcome contingencies that were probabilistic and stable (80% contingent and 20% non-contingent feedback). Uncertainty due to the probabilistic outcomes becomes expected once the preferred action-outcome contingency had been learned. Volatility further adds uncertainty to the probabilistic action-outcome contingencies: at change points, the learned action-outcome contingencies have to be reversed. Volatility represents unexpected uncertainty, since the exact points of the change cannot be anticipated. Valence has been examined by effects of both valence condition and prediction error (PE) valence which makes it challenging to compare and generalize results. In our study, our task allowed us to examine both these valence effects. For PE effects, valence is determined by whether the received outcome relative to the expected outcome was positive or negative at each trial (Eckstein, Master, Dahl, Wilbrecht, & Collins, 2022; Rosenbaum, Grassie, & Hartley, 2022). Notably, PE valence represents trial-to-trial valence effects, and learning from a positive PE may lead to a momentary positive surprise that can change quickly from positive to negative, if the next trial comes with a negative PE. For valence as block-wise condition effects, valence is determined by whether the absolute outcome value was positive or negative, such as in reward learning and punishment learning, respectively (Palminteri, Kilford, Coricelli, & Blakemore, 2016). Here, valence may unfold over multiple trials and lead to more enduring valence effects. During reward learning, the preferred outcome was to receive 3 coins compared to 1 coin only; during punishment learning, the loss of 1 coin was preferred than the loss of 3 coins. We also added a third condition of both mixed reward and punishments, which was commonly used in studies that only examined PE valence effects. In this third condition, which we will refer to as mixed condition, the preferred outcome was to receive 1 coin compared to losing 1 coin. Notably, PE valence can be additionally examined in any of the block-wise valence conditions. A pilot study indicated that the task can be applied to both clinical and neurotypical 8-18-year-old children and adolescents, and that their adaptation performance was modulated by valence and uncertainty. Our sample of the main study will include 120 children and adolescents between the age of 8 and 18, one clinical group (n=60) with diagnoses of anxiety, depression or ADHD, and a neurotypical group (n=60). We aim to delineate differences between psychiatric conditions (ADHD, anxiety, depression) for cognitive adaptation in respect to valence and uncertainty. We also aim to explore potential transdiagnostic effects of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology during cognitive adaptation. We will use both behavioral measures, such as accuracy, switching behavior and reaction time, as well as computational modeling measures, with the aim to capture adaptations in latent prediction-related parameters. How one learns in the learning conditions that differ by uncertainty and valence might depend upon the current symptom severity, both in clinical as well as neurotypical groups. Therefore, our aim of this study is to examine individual differences in clinical symptoms and their effects on uncertainty and valence during learning. We will further explore the moderating roles of the individual’s environment, state and trait, such as socioeconomic disparities, motivational traits and momentary affective state. Research Questions (RQ) Effects of Depression Major depressive disorder is an affective disorder whose primary symptoms are low mood and loss of motivation and pleasure in daily life. Despite its primarily affective symptoms, there is robust evidence of cognitive deficits in depression (Gotlib & Joormann, 2010), which may be related to the hypoactivity of serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline (Eshel & Roiser, 2010; Ruhé, Mason, & Schene, 2007). Of note, depression is considered an internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders (Achenbach, 1966; Carver, Johnson, & Timpano, 2017), with a large overlap in symptoms such as with anxiety disorders, specifically within a distress-based or negative affect symptom cluster (Watson, 2005). The overlap in negative affect symptoms between depression and anxiety may contribute to shared differences during RL. Although previous studies have found similarities and differences in the learning effects of depression and anxiety, a direct comparison with a task that manipulates both valence and uncertainty during RL has not been done. DEP-RQ1: What are the effects of depression on uncertainty conditions during RL? Studies that used RL with stable environments, reflecting low uncertainty, found reduced learning performance (Elliott, Sahakian, Herrod, Robbins, & Paykel, 1997; Steele, Meyer, & Ebmeier, 2004). Two studies used computational models to examine learning processes in depression, with in inconsistent results. The studies examined various parameters, including learning rate and reward sensitivity. Learning rate serves as a metric for quantifying how individuals update future values, whereas reward sensitivity reflects an individual's responsiveness to perceived outcomes. Reward learning rates were negatively related to anhedonic depression symptoms (Brown et al., 2021), but unrelated in a meta-analysis (Huys, Pizzagalli, Bogdan, & Dayan, 2013). Reward sensitivity in turn was either reduced (Huys et al., 2013) or increased (Brown et al., 2021). These contrasting findings may partly be explained by the use of a pavlovian and an instrumental learning task, respectively, and our study will focus on instrumental learning. One study reported reduced choice sensitivity in a more depressed student group (Kunisato et al., 2012), suggesting that depression is associated with less value-dependent choice behavior. Because the parameters of reward sensitivity and choice sensitivity are computationally interchangeable, current models cannot answer whether the parameters captured decision-related or feedback-related effects of depression (Browning, Paulus, & Huys, 2022). Additional parameter differences have been reported, such as a more negative valuation of received outcomes during punishment learning in depression (Brown et al., 2021), suggesting valence effects, or a decreased attentional breadth in relation to higher trait rumination (Hitchcock et al., 2022), suggesting impaired attention and memory processes. Further studies are needed to establish robust links between depressive symptoms and computational parameters in low uncertainty learning conditions during RL. Consistent with tasks of relatively low uncertainty, studies with more volatile tasks such as probabilistic reversal learning have reported impaired learning performance in depression (Dombrovski et al., 2010; Dombrovski, Szanto, Clark, Reynolds, & Siegle, 2013; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, Vo, Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Mukherjee, Lee, Kazinka, D Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Must, Horvath, Nemeth, & Janka, 2013; Rupprechter, Stankevicius, Huys, Steele, & Seriès, 2018). Less optimal switching behavior in term of lower win-stay and higher lose-switch behavior (particularly after misleading feedback) was also observed (Dickstein et al., 2010; Dombrovski et al., 2015; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Murphy, Michael, Robbins, & Sahakian, 2003; Taylor Tavares et al., 2008). In contrast, only one study also reported no learning differences in relation to depression (Brolsma et al., 2020). Some studies applied computational models, with inconsistent findings, similar to studies with low uncertainty tasks. One study reported reduced learning rates in depressed individuals compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020), while another study did not find such differences (Brolsma et al., 2020). Additionally, reduced choice sensitivity was reported (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Rupprechter et al., 2018), as well as a decreased memory of observed rewards, putatively due to working memory constraints (Rupprechter et al., 2018). Overall, behavioral findings show a relatively consistent picture of reduced learning performance in depression under both low and high uncertainty learning. However, these studies mostly used tasks of mixed-valence or reward conditions only, and the picture regarding uncertainty under punishment learning is less clear. Further, robust links between computational parameters, depression and uncertainty are yet to be established. There is some evidence that learning rate and choice sensitivity estimates are lower across uncertainty conditions. DEP-RQ2: What are the effects of depression on valence conditions during RL? Past RL studies of depression have usually used either conditions for reward and punishment learning separately, or they used PE valence within a reward task to determine valence effects (i.e. gaining more or less than expected). While both PE valence as well as valence condition (learning from positive or from negative feedback) have been studied extensively in depression, these valence effects may represent distinct characteristics on learning which need to be disentangled. To shed light on the relevance of the way valence is manipulated in relation to depression, our study includes 3 valence conditions: reward learning, punishment learning and mixed valence learning. Of note, many studies that have examined reward learning used a mixed valence feedback scheme. For reward learning, past studies found reduced learning performance in depression (Forbes, Shaw, & Dahl, 2007; Herzallah et al., 2013; Morris, Bylsma, Yaroslavsky, Kovacs, & Rottenberg, 2015; Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, Sahakian, & Drevets, 2012). Reduced reward learning was related to reduced striatal activation following positive PE (Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, et al., 2012). Further, both reduced striatal activations and reduced reward learning were a predictor of future depressive symptoms during adolescence (Forbes et al., 2007; Morgan, Olino, McMakin, Ryan, & Forbes, 2013). In terms of positive PE effects on learning, a simulation meta-analysis found lower learning rates, while results from the conventional meta-analysis shows only showed lower learning rates at trend (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Estimation tasks found a reduced positivity bias (Garrett et al., 2014; Sharot, Korn, & Dolan, 2011), which may implicate a reduced positivity and confirmation bias in depression during RL as well. Here, learning rates from positive and confirmatory PE are usually higher than from negative and disconfirmatory PE, which leads to higher learning performance compared to symmetric learning rates (Palminteri & Lebreton, 2022). In contrast, a developmental study found no effect of depressive symptoms on learning rate asymmetry (Nussenbaum, Velez, Washington, Hamling, & Hartley, 2022). In brief, both reward condition and positive PE effects suggest that reward learning may be reduced in depression, but the underlying computational mechanisms during RL are less clear. For punishment learning, two studies found higher learning performance relative to that of reward learning (Herzallah et al., 2013; Timmer, Sescousse, Van Der Schaaf, Esselink, & Cools, 2017). An acute lowering of serotonin levels in healthy individuals through depleting its precursor tryptophan lead to enhanced punishment learning, which suggests that low serotonin increase punishment learning, but do not affect reward learning (Cools, Robinson, & Sahakian, 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012). Indeed, depressed individuals with SSRI medication showed lower punishment learning relative to unmedicated depression individuals, but no differences in reward leaning (Herzallah et al., 2013). Studies with computational models examined either punishment learning rates or negative PE learning rates. Punishment learning rates showed inconsistent findings, with higher learning rates in depressed and anxious individuals compared to healthy controls (Aylward et al., 2019), or lower learning rates in depressed compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020). In terms of negative PE valence, a meta-analysis found higher learning rates in a simulation approach, while results in the conventional approach showed no effect (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Another study did not find changed learning rates in relation to depression, but a higher shift towards perceiving punishments as larger (Brown et al., 2021). To summarize, despite some inconsistencies in the literature, both punishment condition and negative PE effects point towards enhanced punishment learning in depression. Overall, the finding of both reduced reward learning and enhanced punishment learning in depression has led to the idea that depressed individuals differ in their subjective valuation and exhibit an exaggerated loss aversion compared to what prospect theory has established in healthy individuals (Chen, Takahashi, Nakagawa, Inoue, & Kusumi, 2015). There is evidence of learning deviations under both valence conditions in depression, but it is yet unclear whether these emerge in earlier developmental phases. DEP-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters during RL? Depression is a highly heterogeneous disorder, which might explain some of the inconsistencies found during learning in depression. A closer look at specific symptom effects might prove useful to shed new light on the effects on RL. Depression is often distinguished by the symptom clusters of anhedonia and negative affect. Anhedonia is the loss of pleasure or lack of reactivity to pleasurable stimuli. While negative affect in depression shows considerable overlap with anxiety disorders, anhedonia is more independent of anxiety, but overlapping considerably with other disorders such as schizophrenia or addiction (Pizzagalli, 2014). Negative affect or distress putatively is influenced by serotonergic function, whereas anhedonia depends more upon dopaminergic function (Nutt, 2008). Therefore, these two symptom clusters within depression may have distinct effects on learning behavior. Since serotonergic function has been shown to specifically target punishment learning (Cools et al., 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012), it is possible that enhanced punishment learning can be linked to negative affect. A direct link between negative affect and punishment learning in depression has been previously reported, but remains understudied (Brown et al., 2021). Anhedonia in turn has been studied extensively, and consistently identified related reduced striatal activations during reward anticipation and reward delivery in adolescents and adults (Gradin et al., 2011; Stringaris et al., 2015). Anhedonic symptoms were related to less optimal switching behavior (Pizzagalli, Iosifescu, Hallett, Ratner, & Fava, 2008), reduced learning rates from positive and negative PE (Chase et al., 2010), specifically to reduced reward learning rates (Brown et al., 2021), and to more exploratory decision-making during learning (Harlé, Guo, Zhang, Paulus, & Yu, 2017). Overall, this suggests that anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters may have differential effects during RL, and further studies are needed to examine how negative affect modulates RL. Effects of Anxiety Anxiety disorders can differ with regard to the situation (e.g. social anxiety) or the objects (e.g. specific phobia) that cause symptoms such as aversive affective state, somatic stress symptoms and perception of sustained threat. Anxiety is increasingly recognized as developmental disorder (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), and together with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, it has been categorized as internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders, e.g. ADHD and conduct disorder (Achenbach, 1966; Carver et al., 2017). Among internalizing disorders, conditions can be further divided into fear-based or distress-based symptom clusters (Watson, 2005), however, other symptom clusters have been distinguished as well (e.g. somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms). Maladaptive uncertainty learning has been found for both the fear-based (Brown, Price, & Dombrovski, 2023) and the distress-based symptom clusters (Hammond, Xu, Ai, & Van Dam, 2023). A study that distinguished by somatic and cognitive symptom clusters found stronger influences of the somatic symptom cluster on RL (Fan, Gershman, & Phelps, 2022; Wise & Dolan, 2020). Neurally, individuals with anxiety disorders exhibited higher noradrenaline levels (Kalk, Nutt, & Lingford-Hughes, 2011) and dysregulated serotonergic modulation (Dayan & Huys, 2009), which may relate to the observed learning disruptions. Further, structural brain differences have been found to mediate the effect of unpredictability experienced during childhood on anxiety and depression symptoms in adults, which suggests that the uncertainty experienced as a child increases the risk for anxiety and depression and may lead to structural brain changes during development (Wang, Cao, Zheng, Chen, & Zhu, 2023). It remains unclear to what extent anxiety symptoms explain learning disruptions across both clinical and normative anxiety symptoms equally, and whether age modulates these effects during development. In this study, we will examine how effects of anxiety symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence in both clinical and typically developing individuals. ANX-RQ1: What are the effects of anxiety on uncertainty conditions during RL? The current literature suggests that uncertainty processing is central to learning disruptions in anxiety symptoms (Brown et al., 2023). The aversive consequence of uncertainty in anxiety has been shown to impair behavioral learning performance already during low uncertainty, such as expected uncertainty, which is inherent in probabilistic but stable learning (LaFreniere & Newman, 2019). Under high uncertainty, such as in volatile environments, higher anxiety reduced learning performance and predicted aberrant switching behavior, such as reduced win-stay, increased or reduced lose-shift behavior (Dickstein et al., 2010; Hein, de Fockert, & Ruiz, 2021; Huang, Thompson, & Paulus, 2017; Piray, Ly, Roelofs, Cools, & Toni, 2019; Xia, Xu, Yang, Gu, & Zhang, 2021). Maladaptive uncertainty learning may be related to chronic underconfidence in individuals with anxiety and depression, as they showed disproportionally larger updates from low confidence decisions (Katyal, Huys, Dolan, & Fleming, 2023). One study also reported an inverted-u-shaped effect of trait anxiety on learning: both low and high trait anxiety were related to lower behavioral learning performance compared to intermediate trait anxiety (Aberg, Toren, & Paz, 2022). A nonlinear effect of anxiety on learning may be linked to the nonlinear effect of arousal on optimal task engagement that is attributed to noradrenaline function (Eckstein, Guerra-Carrillo, Miller Singley, & Bunge, 2017). Computational studies suggest that individuals with higher trait anxiety or with internalizing symptoms have difficulty adjusting their learning rate to the learning environments. Specifically, higher trait anxiety or internalizing symptoms predicted smaller learning rate adjustments between stable and volatile learning environments, which reflects less flexible learning (Browning, Behrens, Jocham, O’Reilly, & Bishop, 2015; Gagne, Zika, Dayan, & Bishop, 2020). The less flexible updating in relation to high internalizing symptoms was further characterized by a reduced updating after positive PE when action-outcome contingencies where changing throughout the learning block (Gagne et al., 2020). Beyond effects on learning rates, there is evidence that anxiety modulates decision-making during RL. Trait anxiety predicted the strategy by which participants explored alternative choices: higher trait anxiety participants exhibited a shift from value-based exploration towards uncertainty-related exploration (Aberg et al., 2022). This is in line with another study which reported that among individuals that were best described by a value-free choice strategy win-stay-lose-shift, higher state anxiety individuals exploited this value-free strategy more. Overall, anxiety may enhance less optimal choice strategies at the cost of value-based decision-making. To summarize, the currently literature found that anxiety has disruptive effects on learning under both low and high levels of uncertainty. Behavioral studies found reduced learning performance and less optimal switching behavior, but learning performance effects may also be nonlinearly related to anxiety symptoms. Computational studies have focused on anxiety effects between high and low uncertainty, but it is unclear how parameters of each uncertainty level are related to anxiety. These studies reported maladaptive learning rate adjustments to the statistics of the environment, as well as a shift from value-based to value-free decision behavior, but no studies have reported both effects of learning rate and decision behavior. Further, some studies reported combined effects of anxiety and depression, and it is not clear to what extent anxiety and depression show distinct effects on learning. Despite its relevance of anxiety disorders during development (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), it is unknown whether anxiety disrupts learning in children and adolescents similarly as in adults, since the only study with a pediatric sample found no behavioral effects of anxiety and did not apply computational models (Dickstein et al., 2010). This study will examine how anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents, both of clinical and normative symptoms range, show effects of uncertainty that are independent of depressive symptoms. ANX-RQ2: What are the effects of anxiety on valence conditions during RL? The effects of anxiety on uncertainty learning were most consistently found during punishment or threat learning, both behaviorally and computationally (Aberg et al., 2022; Browning et al., 2015; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019; Piray et al., 2019). Some studies extended the found effects of uncertainty to both punishment and reward learning (Aberg et al., 2022; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019) or did not find effects in either valence condition (Dickstein et al., 2010). Other studies did not examine reward and punishment separately, but they presented both rewards and punishments mixed within learning blocks; these studies found behaviorally reduced learning performance (Xia et al., 2021), and in a simulation meta-analysis higher negative PE learning rates and lower positive PE learning across depression and anxiety (Pike & Robinson, 2022). A recent study using naturalistic learning found that higher negative PE learning rates explained lower and less precise expectations about future academic outcomes and predicted the long-term development of anxiety (Villano et al., 2023). In brief, this new body of literature suggests that higher anxiety symptoms may predict aberrant processing of negative outcomes, both under punishment learning and from negative PE, and that this may be a risk factor for the development of anxiety. It is unknown whether anxiety modulates processing of negative outcomes already in children and adolescents. ANX-RQ3: Are there differential effects of anxiety symptom clusters during RL? The distinctions between fear-based and distress-based anxiety symptoms as well as somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety symptoms have helped to examine learning disruptions in relation to more specific symptom clusters. Although it has been proposed that fear-based symptoms exert stronger effects on RL (Brown et al., 2023), the current literature suggests that multiple symptom clusters may have effects on RL. Studies that specified effects of symptom clusters found that somatic anxiety reduced uncertainty-directed exploration, whereas cognitive anxiety increased uncertainty-directed exploration (Fan et al., 2022). Similarly, divergent roles of these two symptoms clusters have been found during aversive learning (Wise & Dolan, 2020). The previously described maladaptive learning rate adjustment between stable and volatile environments was attributed to distress-based symptoms, which are less specific to anxiety and likely reflect internalizing symptoms more broadly (Gagne et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2023). Importantly, the effects of fear-based symptoms have not been examined in these two studies. Therefore, it is unknown whether the effects on learning rate can be better attributed to fear-based symptoms rather than to distress-based symptoms. Since maladaptive learning rate adjustments were also linked to reduced pupil dilation changes, reflecting noradrenaline function and arousal, physiological anxiety symptoms may underlie uncertainty-related effects (Browning et al., 2015). The divergent effects of somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms on decision behavior are difficult to interpret, but it seems that the role of somatic anxiety symptoms is more in line with the effect of a study that did not distinguish by symptom clusters (Aberg et al., 2022). The current definitions of symptoms clusters vary (eg. fear-based and distress-based symptoms, somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms), which makes is difficult to integrate findings. Effects of ADHD Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is commonly described as a developmental brain disorder, in which the hypofunctioning of noradrenaline and dopamine lead to reduced cognitive performance such as during RL (Plichta & Scheres, 2014; Ziegler, Pedersen, Mowinckel, & Biele, 2016). Notably, not just neurotransmitter hypofunction such as in ADHD, but also hyperfunction such as during stress (Arnsten, 1999, 2009) has been shown to impair performance. Therefore, an inverted-u-shaped relationship between neurotransmitter function and cognitive performance has been proposed (Biederman & Spencer, 1999; Del Campo, Chamberlain, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2011). Beyond functional differences, the effect of ADHD has been observed in the brain structure, likely as long-term consequence of brain neuroplasticity. Brain regions implicated in reward processing and value representation, such as the ventral striatum and the orbitofrontal cortex, exhibited smaller volumes in individuals with ADHD compared to controls (Carmona et al., 2009; Hesslinger et al., 2002). The well-established biological differences in ADHD have led to effective psychopharmacological treatments in ameliorating ADHD symptoms. Stimulants such as methylphenidate are used to target and normalize dopamine function. Some studies that controlled for methylphenidate use showed that it improved learning performance (Luman, Goos, & Oosterlaan, 2015; Pelham, Milich, & Walker, 1986), which suggests that medication use is a relevant confounding factor for examining effects of ADHD on learning. It remains unclear whether ADHD symptoms explain learning differences only by diagnostic categorization such as reported in case-control studies, or whether these learning effects also extend to subclinical ADHD symptoms in clinical and neurotypically developing groups. Further, it remains unclear whether the effects of ADHD on RL are more pronounced during sensitive developmental periods such as during childhood and adolescence. In this study, we will examine how effects of ADHD symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence. ADHD-RQ1: What are the effects of ADHD on uncertainty conditions during RL? Several studies have examined the effects of ADHD diagnosis on RL under different levels of uncertainty (Hulsbosch et al., 2021). Under low uncertainty, studies showed mixed findings: some found no effects of ADHD (Luman et al., 2015; Oades & Müller, 1997; Wiesner, Molzow, Prehn-Kristensen, & Baving, 2017), while other found reduced learning (Frank, Santamaria, O’Reilly, & Willcutt, 2007; Gabay, Shahbari-Khateb, & Mendelsohn, 2018; Luman et al., 2021; Shephard, Jackson, & Groom, 2016). Additionally two studies reported slower and more variable reaction times (Frank et al., 2007; Gabay et al., 2018). Under high uncertainty, studies show similarly mixed evidence: two studies found no effects of ADHD (Chantiluke et al., 2015; Finger et al., 2008), one study reported computational effects (Hauser et al., 2014) in terms of a more explorative choice behavior, and two studies showed reduced learning performance in ADHD compared to a control group (Itami & Ca, 2002; Shephard et al., 2016). To summarize, the current literature shows mixed findings during RL under both low and high uncertainty. If an effect was found for ADHD, learning performance was reduced, choices were more erratic, and reaction times were slower and more variable. This study aims to shed new light on whether uncertainty modulates effects of ADHD symptoms during RL, and how these effects can be captured both behaviorally and computationally. ADHD-RQ2: What are the effects of ADHD on valence conditions during RL? No studies have examined the effects of punishment learning in ADHD so far. One study has reported differences in response to positive and negative feedback: negative feedback elicited stronger activations in children with ADHD compared to neurotypical children (Van Meel, Oosterlaan, Heslenfeld, & Sergeant, 2005). Given that the abovementioned brain deficits in ADHD were found in relation to reward learning, processing of negative feedback may be relatively spared and lead to an imbalance towards stronger processing of negative information compared to positive information. It is currently unknown whether the effects of ADHD might be less pronounced during punishment learning and learning from negative PE, compared to learning from reward and positive PE. ADHD-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness during RL? ADHD consists of a set of symptoms, most notably the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness. While previous studies reported correlations of the symptom clusters to learning deficits (Gabay et al., 2018; Luman et al., 2015), it is currently unclear whether the symptom clusters show separable contributions to RL. Computational models may help to identify separable contributions. For example, one theoretical model showed that aberrant learning parameters reproduced impulsive behavior in a delayed response time task (Williams & Dayan, 2005). Impulsive and hyperactive symptoms might be to learning parameters such as learning rate. No study has reported learning rate effects of ADHD, although all theoretical models of ADHD agree that dopamine hypofunction leads to aberrant learning parameters (Frank et al., 2007; Sagvolden, Johansen, Aase, & Russell, 2005; Tripp & Wickens, 2008). Thus, it is unknown whether hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms and the underlying dopamine hypofunction specifically explain effects on learning rate. The attention deficit in ADHD has not been linked to computational parameters yet. However, noradrenaline function, which is fundamental in attentional processes, has been linked decision behavior during RL (Dubois et al., 2021, 2020; Frank et al., 2007). In contrast, one influential theoretical account of ADHD has linked attention deficits to the dopaminergic mesocortical pathway (Sagvolden et al., 2005). Therefore, it remains unclear whether inattentiveness in ADHD is specifically linked to noradrenergic function and attributed explorative decision behavior, as well as slower and more variable reaction times during RL.

Changes in the environment require constant adaptation to optimize future behavior. Learning through reinforcement is essential for adaptation in response to changes in the environment; such ability is thought to play a key role in human cognitive development as well as in the emergence and maintenance of psychiatric disorders, such as ADHD, depression or anxiety. Uncertainty and valence are considered to be two important factors for cognitive adaptation during reinforcement learning (RL). Clinical symptoms have been shown to modulate RL with respect to uncertainty and valence conditions, but little is known how psychopathology affects RL in clinically diagnosed compared to typically developing children and adolescents. In this study, we used a probabilistic learning task in which we experimentally manipulated uncertainty and valence levels. Uncertainty was manipulated by two uncertainty conditions, one which included stochasticity, and another which added volatility. Stochasticity or expected uncertainty refers to learning action-outcome contingencies that were probabilistic and stable (80% contingent and 20% non-contingent feedback). Uncertainty due to the probabilistic outcomes becomes expected once the preferred action-outcome contingency had been learned. Volatility further adds uncertainty to the probabilistic action-outcome contingencies: at change points, the learned action-outcome contingencies have to be reversed. Volatility represents unexpected uncertainty, since the exact points of the change cannot be anticipated. Valence has been examined by effects of both valence condition and prediction error (PE) valence which makes it challenging to compare and generalize results. In our study, our task allowed us to examine both these valence effects. For PE effects, valence is determined by whether the received outcome relative to the expected outcome was positive or negative at each trial (Eckstein, Master, Dahl, Wilbrecht, & Collins, 2022; Rosenbaum, Grassie, & Hartley, 2022). Notably, PE valence represents trial-to-trial valence effects, and learning from a positive PE may lead to a momentary positive surprise that can change quickly from positive to negative, if the next trial comes with a negative PE. For valence as block-wise condition effects, valence is determined by whether the absolute outcome value was positive or negative, such as in reward learning and punishment learning, respectively (Palminteri, Kilford, Coricelli, & Blakemore, 2016). Here, valence may unfold over multiple trials and lead to more enduring valence effects. During reward learning, the preferred outcome was to receive 3 coins compared to 1 coin only; during punishment learning, the loss of 1 coin was preferred than the loss of 3 coins. We also added a third condition of both mixed reward and punishments, which was commonly used in studies that only examined PE valence effects. In this third condition, which we will refer to as mixed condition, the preferred outcome was to receive 1 coin compared to losing 1 coin. Notably, PE valence can be additionally examined in any of the block-wise valence conditions. A pilot study indicated that the task can be applied to both clinical and neurotypical 8-18-year-old children and adolescents, and that their adaptation performance was modulated by valence and uncertainty. Our sample of the main study will include 120 children and adolescents between the age of 8 and 18, one clinical group (n=60) with diagnoses of anxiety, depression or ADHD, and a neurotypical group (n=60). We aim to delineate differences between psychiatric conditions (ADHD, anxiety, depression) for cognitive adaptation in respect to valence and uncertainty. We also aim to explore potential transdiagnostic effects of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology during cognitive adaptation. We will use both behavioral measures, such as accuracy, switching behavior and reaction time, as well as computational modeling measures, with the aim to capture adaptations in latent prediction-related parameters. How one learns in the learning conditions that differ by uncertainty and valence might depend upon the current symptom severity, both in clinical as well as neurotypical groups. Therefore, our aim of this study is to examine individual differences in clinical symptoms and their effects on uncertainty and valence during learning. We will further explore the moderating roles of the individual’s environment, state and trait, such as socioeconomic disparities, motivational traits and momentary affective state. Research Questions (RQ) Effects of Depression Major depressive disorder is an affective disorder whose primary symptoms are low mood and loss of motivation and pleasure in daily life. Despite its primarily affective symptoms, there is robust evidence of cognitive deficits in depression (Gotlib & Joormann, 2010), which may be related to the hypoactivity of serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline (Eshel & Roiser, 2010; Ruhé, Mason, & Schene, 2007). Of note, depression is considered an internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders (Achenbach, 1966; Carver, Johnson, & Timpano, 2017), with a large overlap in symptoms such as with anxiety disorders, specifically within a distress-based or negative affect symptom cluster (Watson, 2005). The overlap in negative affect symptoms between depression and anxiety may contribute to shared differences during RL. Although previous studies have found similarities and differences in the learning effects of depression and anxiety, a direct comparison with a task that manipulates both valence and uncertainty during RL has not been done. DEP-RQ1: What are the effects of depression on uncertainty conditions during RL? Studies that used RL with stable environments, reflecting low uncertainty, found reduced learning performance (Elliott, Sahakian, Herrod, Robbins, & Paykel, 1997; Steele, Meyer, & Ebmeier, 2004). Two studies used computational models to examine learning processes in depression, with in inconsistent results. The studies examined various parameters, including learning rate and reward sensitivity. Learning rate serves as a metric for quantifying how individuals update future values, whereas reward sensitivity reflects an individual's responsiveness to perceived outcomes. Reward learning rates were negatively related to anhedonic depression symptoms (Brown et al., 2021), but unrelated in a meta-analysis (Huys, Pizzagalli, Bogdan, & Dayan, 2013). Reward sensitivity in turn was either reduced (Huys et al., 2013) or increased (Brown et al., 2021). These contrasting findings may partly be explained by the use of a pavlovian and an instrumental learning task, respectively, and our study will focus on instrumental learning. One study reported reduced choice sensitivity in a more depressed student group (Kunisato et al., 2012), suggesting that depression is associated with less value-dependent choice behavior. Because the parameters of reward sensitivity and choice sensitivity are computationally interchangeable, current models cannot answer whether the parameters captured decision-related or feedback-related effects of depression (Browning, Paulus, & Huys, 2022). Additional parameter differences have been reported, such as a more negative valuation of received outcomes during punishment learning in depression (Brown et al., 2021), suggesting valence effects, or a decreased attentional breadth in relation to higher trait rumination (Hitchcock et al., 2022), suggesting impaired attention and memory processes. Further studies are needed to establish robust links between depressive symptoms and computational parameters in low uncertainty learning conditions during RL. Consistent with tasks of relatively low uncertainty, studies with more volatile tasks such as probabilistic reversal learning have reported impaired learning performance in depression (Dombrovski et al., 2010; Dombrovski, Szanto, Clark, Reynolds, & Siegle, 2013; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, Vo, Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Mukherjee, Lee, Kazinka, D Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Must, Horvath, Nemeth, & Janka, 2013; Rupprechter, Stankevicius, Huys, Steele, & Seriès, 2018). Less optimal switching behavior in term of lower win-stay and higher lose-switch behavior (particularly after misleading feedback) was also observed (Dickstein et al., 2010; Dombrovski et al., 2015; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Murphy, Michael, Robbins, & Sahakian, 2003; Taylor Tavares et al., 2008). In contrast, only one study also reported no learning differences in relation to depression (Brolsma et al., 2020). Some studies applied computational models, with inconsistent findings, similar to studies with low uncertainty tasks. One study reported reduced learning rates in depressed individuals compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020), while another study did not find such differences (Brolsma et al., 2020). Additionally, reduced choice sensitivity was reported (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Rupprechter et al., 2018), as well as a decreased memory of observed rewards, putatively due to working memory constraints (Rupprechter et al., 2018). Overall, behavioral findings show a relatively consistent picture of reduced learning performance in depression under both low and high uncertainty learning. However, these studies mostly used tasks of mixed-valence or reward conditions only, and the picture regarding uncertainty under punishment learning is less clear. Further, robust links between computational parameters, depression and uncertainty are yet to be established. There is some evidence that learning rate and choice sensitivity estimates are lower across uncertainty conditions. DEP-RQ2: What are the effects of depression on valence conditions during RL? Past RL studies of depression have usually used either conditions for reward and punishment learning separately, or they used PE valence within a reward task to determine valence effects (i.e. gaining more or less than expected). While both PE valence as well as valence condition (learning from positive or from negative feedback) have been studied extensively in depression, these valence effects may represent distinct characteristics on learning which need to be disentangled. To shed light on the relevance of the way valence is manipulated in relation to depression, our study includes 3 valence conditions: reward learning, punishment learning and mixed valence learning. Of note, many studies that have examined reward learning used a mixed valence feedback scheme. For reward learning, past studies found reduced learning performance in depression (Forbes, Shaw, & Dahl, 2007; Herzallah et al., 2013; Morris, Bylsma, Yaroslavsky, Kovacs, & Rottenberg, 2015; Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, Sahakian, & Drevets, 2012). Reduced reward learning was related to reduced striatal activation following positive PE (Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, et al., 2012). Further, both reduced striatal activations and reduced reward learning were a predictor of future depressive symptoms during adolescence (Forbes et al., 2007; Morgan, Olino, McMakin, Ryan, & Forbes, 2013). In terms of positive PE effects on learning, a simulation meta-analysis found lower learning rates, while results from the conventional meta-analysis shows only showed lower learning rates at trend (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Estimation tasks found a reduced positivity bias (Garrett et al., 2014; Sharot, Korn, & Dolan, 2011), which may implicate a reduced positivity and confirmation bias in depression during RL as well. Here, learning rates from positive and confirmatory PE are usually higher than from negative and disconfirmatory PE, which leads to higher learning performance compared to symmetric learning rates (Palminteri & Lebreton, 2022). In contrast, a developmental study found no effect of depressive symptoms on learning rate asymmetry (Nussenbaum, Velez, Washington, Hamling, & Hartley, 2022). In brief, both reward condition and positive PE effects suggest that reward learning may be reduced in depression, but the underlying computational mechanisms during RL are less clear. For punishment learning, two studies found higher learning performance relative to that of reward learning (Herzallah et al., 2013; Timmer, Sescousse, Van Der Schaaf, Esselink, & Cools, 2017). An acute lowering of serotonin levels in healthy individuals through depleting its precursor tryptophan lead to enhanced punishment learning, which suggests that low serotonin increase punishment learning, but do not affect reward learning (Cools, Robinson, & Sahakian, 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012). Indeed, depressed individuals with SSRI medication showed lower punishment learning relative to unmedicated depression individuals, but no differences in reward leaning (Herzallah et al., 2013). Studies with computational models examined either punishment learning rates or negative PE learning rates. Punishment learning rates showed inconsistent findings, with higher learning rates in depressed and anxious individuals compared to healthy controls (Aylward et al., 2019), or lower learning rates in depressed compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020). In terms of negative PE valence, a meta-analysis found higher learning rates in a simulation approach, while results in the conventional approach showed no effect (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Another study did not find changed learning rates in relation to depression, but a higher shift towards perceiving punishments as larger (Brown et al., 2021). To summarize, despite some inconsistencies in the literature, both punishment condition and negative PE effects point towards enhanced punishment learning in depression. Overall, the finding of both reduced reward learning and enhanced punishment learning in depression has led to the idea that depressed individuals differ in their subjective valuation and exhibit an exaggerated loss aversion compared to what prospect theory has established in healthy individuals (Chen, Takahashi, Nakagawa, Inoue, & Kusumi, 2015). There is evidence of learning deviations under both valence conditions in depression, but it is yet unclear whether these emerge in earlier developmental phases. DEP-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters during RL? Depression is a highly heterogeneous disorder, which might explain some of the inconsistencies found during learning in depression. A closer look at specific symptom effects might prove useful to shed new light on the effects on RL. Depression is often distinguished by the symptom clusters of anhedonia and negative affect. Anhedonia is the loss of pleasure or lack of reactivity to pleasurable stimuli. While negative affect in depression shows considerable overlap with anxiety disorders, anhedonia is more independent of anxiety, but overlapping considerably with other disorders such as schizophrenia or addiction (Pizzagalli, 2014). Negative affect or distress putatively is influenced by serotonergic function, whereas anhedonia depends more upon dopaminergic function (Nutt, 2008). Therefore, these two symptom clusters within depression may have distinct effects on learning behavior. Since serotonergic function has been shown to specifically target punishment learning (Cools et al., 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012), it is possible that enhanced punishment learning can be linked to negative affect. A direct link between negative affect and punishment learning in depression has been previously reported, but remains understudied (Brown et al., 2021). Anhedonia in turn has been studied extensively, and consistently identified related reduced striatal activations during reward anticipation and reward delivery in adolescents and adults (Gradin et al., 2011; Stringaris et al., 2015). Anhedonic symptoms were related to less optimal switching behavior (Pizzagalli, Iosifescu, Hallett, Ratner, & Fava, 2008), reduced learning rates from positive and negative PE (Chase et al., 2010), specifically to reduced reward learning rates (Brown et al., 2021), and to more exploratory decision-making during learning (Harlé, Guo, Zhang, Paulus, & Yu, 2017). Overall, this suggests that anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters may have differential effects during RL, and further studies are needed to examine how negative affect modulates RL. Effects of Anxiety Anxiety disorders can differ with regard to the situation (e.g. social anxiety) or the objects (e.g. specific phobia) that cause symptoms such as aversive affective state, somatic stress symptoms and perception of sustained threat. Anxiety is increasingly recognized as developmental disorder (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), and together with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, it has been categorized as internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders, e.g. ADHD and conduct disorder (Achenbach, 1966; Carver et al., 2017). Among internalizing disorders, conditions can be further divided into fear-based or distress-based symptom clusters (Watson, 2005), however, other symptom clusters have been distinguished as well (e.g. somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms). Maladaptive uncertainty learning has been found for both the fear-based (Brown, Price, & Dombrovski, 2023) and the distress-based symptom clusters (Hammond, Xu, Ai, & Van Dam, 2023). A study that distinguished by somatic and cognitive symptom clusters found stronger influences of the somatic symptom cluster on RL (Fan, Gershman, & Phelps, 2022; Wise & Dolan, 2020). Neurally, individuals with anxiety disorders exhibited higher noradrenaline levels (Kalk, Nutt, & Lingford-Hughes, 2011) and dysregulated serotonergic modulation (Dayan & Huys, 2009), which may relate to the observed learning disruptions. Further, structural brain differences have been found to mediate the effect of unpredictability experienced during childhood on anxiety and depression symptoms in adults, which suggests that the uncertainty experienced as a child increases the risk for anxiety and depression and may lead to structural brain changes during development (Wang, Cao, Zheng, Chen, & Zhu, 2023). It remains unclear to what extent anxiety symptoms explain learning disruptions across both clinical and normative anxiety symptoms equally, and whether age modulates these effects during development. In this study, we will examine how effects of anxiety symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence in both clinical and typically developing individuals. ANX-RQ1: What are the effects of anxiety on uncertainty conditions during RL? The current literature suggests that uncertainty processing is central to learning disruptions in anxiety symptoms (Brown et al., 2023). The aversive consequence of uncertainty in anxiety has been shown to impair behavioral learning performance already during low uncertainty, such as expected uncertainty, which is inherent in probabilistic but stable learning (LaFreniere & Newman, 2019). Under high uncertainty, such as in volatile environments, higher anxiety reduced learning performance and predicted aberrant switching behavior, such as reduced win-stay, increased or reduced lose-shift behavior (Dickstein et al., 2010; Hein, de Fockert, & Ruiz, 2021; Huang, Thompson, & Paulus, 2017; Piray, Ly, Roelofs, Cools, & Toni, 2019; Xia, Xu, Yang, Gu, & Zhang, 2021). Maladaptive uncertainty learning may be related to chronic underconfidence in individuals with anxiety and depression, as they showed disproportionally larger updates from low confidence decisions (Katyal, Huys, Dolan, & Fleming, 2023). One study also reported an inverted-u-shaped effect of trait anxiety on learning: both low and high trait anxiety were related to lower behavioral learning performance compared to intermediate trait anxiety (Aberg, Toren, & Paz, 2022). A nonlinear effect of anxiety on learning may be linked to the nonlinear effect of arousal on optimal task engagement that is attributed to noradrenaline function (Eckstein, Guerra-Carrillo, Miller Singley, & Bunge, 2017). Computational studies suggest that individuals with higher trait anxiety or with internalizing symptoms have difficulty adjusting their learning rate to the learning environments. Specifically, higher trait anxiety or internalizing symptoms predicted smaller learning rate adjustments between stable and volatile learning environments, which reflects less flexible learning (Browning, Behrens, Jocham, O’Reilly, & Bishop, 2015; Gagne, Zika, Dayan, & Bishop, 2020). The less flexible updating in relation to high internalizing symptoms was further characterized by a reduced updating after positive PE when action-outcome contingencies where changing throughout the learning block (Gagne et al., 2020). Beyond effects on learning rates, there is evidence that anxiety modulates decision-making during RL. Trait anxiety predicted the strategy by which participants explored alternative choices: higher trait anxiety participants exhibited a shift from value-based exploration towards uncertainty-related exploration (Aberg et al., 2022). This is in line with another study which reported that among individuals that were best described by a value-free choice strategy win-stay-lose-shift, higher state anxiety individuals exploited this value-free strategy more. Overall, anxiety may enhance less optimal choice strategies at the cost of value-based decision-making. To summarize, the currently literature found that anxiety has disruptive effects on learning under both low and high levels of uncertainty. Behavioral studies found reduced learning performance and less optimal switching behavior, but learning performance effects may also be nonlinearly related to anxiety symptoms. Computational studies have focused on anxiety effects between high and low uncertainty, but it is unclear how parameters of each uncertainty level are related to anxiety. These studies reported maladaptive learning rate adjustments to the statistics of the environment, as well as a shift from value-based to value-free decision behavior, but no studies have reported both effects of learning rate and decision behavior. Further, some studies reported combined effects of anxiety and depression, and it is not clear to what extent anxiety and depression show distinct effects on learning. Despite its relevance of anxiety disorders during development (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), it is unknown whether anxiety disrupts learning in children and adolescents similarly as in adults, since the only study with a pediatric sample found no behavioral effects of anxiety and did not apply computational models (Dickstein et al., 2010). This study will examine how anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents, both of clinical and normative symptoms range, show effects of uncertainty that are independent of depressive symptoms. ANX-RQ2: What are the effects of anxiety on valence conditions during RL? The effects of anxiety on uncertainty learning were most consistently found during punishment or threat learning, both behaviorally and computationally (Aberg et al., 2022; Browning et al., 2015; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019; Piray et al., 2019). Some studies extended the found effects of uncertainty to both punishment and reward learning (Aberg et al., 2022; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019) or did not find effects in either valence condition (Dickstein et al., 2010). Other studies did not examine reward and punishment separately, but they presented both rewards and punishments mixed within learning blocks; these studies found behaviorally reduced learning performance (Xia et al., 2021), and in a simulation meta-analysis higher negative PE learning rates and lower positive PE learning across depression and anxiety (Pike & Robinson, 2022). A recent study using naturalistic learning found that higher negative PE learning rates explained lower and less precise expectations about future academic outcomes and predicted the long-term development of anxiety (Villano et al., 2023). In brief, this new body of literature suggests that higher anxiety symptoms may predict aberrant processing of negative outcomes, both under punishment learning and from negative PE, and that this may be a risk factor for the development of anxiety. It is unknown whether anxiety modulates processing of negative outcomes already in children and adolescents. ANX-RQ3: Are there differential effects of anxiety symptom clusters during RL? The distinctions between fear-based and distress-based anxiety symptoms as well as somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety symptoms have helped to examine learning disruptions in relation to more specific symptom clusters. Although it has been proposed that fear-based symptoms exert stronger effects on RL (Brown et al., 2023), the current literature suggests that multiple symptom clusters may have effects on RL. Studies that specified effects of symptom clusters found that somatic anxiety reduced uncertainty-directed exploration, whereas cognitive anxiety increased uncertainty-directed exploration (Fan et al., 2022). Similarly, divergent roles of these two symptoms clusters have been found during aversive learning (Wise & Dolan, 2020). The previously described maladaptive learning rate adjustment between stable and volatile environments was attributed to distress-based symptoms, which are less specific to anxiety and likely reflect internalizing symptoms more broadly (Gagne et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2023). Importantly, the effects of fear-based symptoms have not been examined in these two studies. Therefore, it is unknown whether the effects on learning rate can be better attributed to fear-based symptoms rather than to distress-based symptoms. Since maladaptive learning rate adjustments were also linked to reduced pupil dilation changes, reflecting noradrenaline function and arousal, physiological anxiety symptoms may underlie uncertainty-related effects (Browning et al., 2015). The divergent effects of somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms on decision behavior are difficult to interpret, but it seems that the role of somatic anxiety symptoms is more in line with the effect of a study that did not distinguish by symptom clusters (Aberg et al., 2022). The current definitions of symptoms clusters vary (eg. fear-based and distress-based symptoms, somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms), which makes is difficult to integrate findings. Effects of ADHD Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is commonly described as a developmental brain disorder, in which the hypofunctioning of noradrenaline and dopamine lead to reduced cognitive performance such as during RL (Plichta & Scheres, 2014; Ziegler, Pedersen, Mowinckel, & Biele, 2016). Notably, not just neurotransmitter hypofunction such as in ADHD, but also hyperfunction such as during stress (Arnsten, 1999, 2009) has been shown to impair performance. Therefore, an inverted-u-shaped relationship between neurotransmitter function and cognitive performance has been proposed (Biederman & Spencer, 1999; Del Campo, Chamberlain, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2011). Beyond functional differences, the effect of ADHD has been observed in the brain structure, likely as long-term consequence of brain neuroplasticity. Brain regions implicated in reward processing and value representation, such as the ventral striatum and the orbitofrontal cortex, exhibited smaller volumes in individuals with ADHD compared to controls (Carmona et al., 2009; Hesslinger et al., 2002). The well-established biological differences in ADHD have led to effective psychopharmacological treatments in ameliorating ADHD symptoms. Stimulants such as methylphenidate are used to target and normalize dopamine function. Some studies that controlled for methylphenidate use showed that it improved learning performance (Luman, Goos, & Oosterlaan, 2015; Pelham, Milich, & Walker, 1986), which suggests that medication use is a relevant confounding factor for examining effects of ADHD on learning. It remains unclear whether ADHD symptoms explain learning differences only by diagnostic categorization such as reported in case-control studies, or whether these learning effects also extend to subclinical ADHD symptoms in clinical and neurotypically developing groups. Further, it remains unclear whether the effects of ADHD on RL are more pronounced during sensitive developmental periods such as during childhood and adolescence. In this study, we will examine how effects of ADHD symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence. ADHD-RQ1: What are the effects of ADHD on uncertainty conditions during RL? Several studies have examined the effects of ADHD diagnosis on RL under different levels of uncertainty (Hulsbosch et al., 2021). Under low uncertainty, studies showed mixed findings: some found no effects of ADHD (Luman et al., 2015; Oades & Müller, 1997; Wiesner, Molzow, Prehn-Kristensen, & Baving, 2017), while other found reduced learning (Frank, Santamaria, O’Reilly, & Willcutt, 2007; Gabay, Shahbari-Khateb, & Mendelsohn, 2018; Luman et al., 2021; Shephard, Jackson, & Groom, 2016). Additionally two studies reported slower and more variable reaction times (Frank et al., 2007; Gabay et al., 2018). Under high uncertainty, studies show similarly mixed evidence: two studies found no effects of ADHD (Chantiluke et al., 2015; Finger et al., 2008), one study reported computational effects (Hauser et al., 2014) in terms of a more explorative choice behavior, and two studies showed reduced learning performance in ADHD compared to a control group (Itami & Ca, 2002; Shephard et al., 2016). To summarize, the current literature shows mixed findings during RL under both low and high uncertainty. If an effect was found for ADHD, learning performance was reduced, choices were more erratic, and reaction times were slower and more variable. This study aims to shed new light on whether uncertainty modulates effects of ADHD symptoms during RL, and how these effects can be captured both behaviorally and computationally. ADHD-RQ2: What are the effects of ADHD on valence conditions during RL? No studies have examined the effects of punishment learning in ADHD so far. One study has reported differences in response to positive and negative feedback: negative feedback elicited stronger activations in children with ADHD compared to neurotypical children (Van Meel, Oosterlaan, Heslenfeld, & Sergeant, 2005). Given that the abovementioned brain deficits in ADHD were found in relation to reward learning, processing of negative feedback may be relatively spared and lead to an imbalance towards stronger processing of negative information compared to positive information. It is currently unknown whether the effects of ADHD might be less pronounced during punishment learning and learning from negative PE, compared to learning from reward and positive PE. ADHD-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness during RL? ADHD consists of a set of symptoms, most notably the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness. While previous studies reported correlations of the symptom clusters to learning deficits (Gabay et al., 2018; Luman et al., 2015), it is currently unclear whether the symptom clusters show separable contributions to RL. Computational models may help to identify separable contributions. For example, one theoretical model showed that aberrant learning parameters reproduced impulsive behavior in a delayed response time task (Williams & Dayan, 2005). Impulsive and hyperactive symptoms might be to learning parameters such as learning rate. No study has reported learning rate effects of ADHD, although all theoretical models of ADHD agree that dopamine hypofunction leads to aberrant learning parameters (Frank et al., 2007; Sagvolden, Johansen, Aase, & Russell, 2005; Tripp & Wickens, 2008). Thus, it is unknown whether hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms and the underlying dopamine hypofunction specifically explain effects on learning rate. The attention deficit in ADHD has not been linked to computational parameters yet. However, noradrenaline function, which is fundamental in attentional processes, has been linked decision behavior during RL (Dubois et al., 2021, 2020; Frank et al., 2007). In contrast, one influential theoretical account of ADHD has linked attention deficits to the dopaminergic mesocortical pathway (Sagvolden et al., 2005). Therefore, it remains unclear whether inattentiveness in ADHD is specifically linked to noradrenergic function and attributed explorative decision behavior, as well as slower and more variable reaction times during RL.

Changes in the environment require constant adaptation to optimize future behavior. Learning through reinforcement is essential for adaptation in response to changes in the environment; such ability is thought to play a key role in human cognitive development as well as in the emergence and maintenance of psychiatric disorders, such as ADHD, depression or anxiety. Uncertainty and valence are considered to be two important factors for cognitive adaptation during reinforcement learning (RL). Clinical symptoms have been shown to modulate RL with respect to uncertainty and valence conditions, but little is known how psychopathology affects RL in clinically diagnosed compared to typically developing children and adolescents. In this study, we used a probabilistic learning task in which we experimentally manipulated uncertainty and valence levels. Uncertainty was manipulated by two uncertainty conditions, one which included stochasticity, and another which added volatility. Stochasticity or expected uncertainty refers to learning action-outcome contingencies that were probabilistic and stable (80% contingent and 20% non-contingent feedback). Uncertainty due to the probabilistic outcomes becomes expected once the preferred action-outcome contingency had been learned. Volatility further adds uncertainty to the probabilistic action-outcome contingencies: at change points, the learned action-outcome contingencies have to be reversed. Volatility represents unexpected uncertainty, since the exact points of the change cannot be anticipated. Valence has been examined by effects of both valence condition and prediction error (PE) valence which makes it challenging to compare and generalize results. In our study, our task allowed us to examine both these valence effects. For PE effects, valence is determined by whether the received outcome relative to the expected outcome was positive or negative at each trial (Eckstein, Master, Dahl, Wilbrecht, & Collins, 2022; Rosenbaum, Grassie, & Hartley, 2022). Notably, PE valence represents trial-to-trial valence effects, and learning from a positive PE may lead to a momentary positive surprise that can change quickly from positive to negative, if the next trial comes with a negative PE. For valence as block-wise condition effects, valence is determined by whether the absolute outcome value was positive or negative, such as in reward learning and punishment learning, respectively (Palminteri, Kilford, Coricelli, & Blakemore, 2016). Here, valence may unfold over multiple trials and lead to more enduring valence effects. During reward learning, the preferred outcome was to receive 3 coins compared to 1 coin only; during punishment learning, the loss of 1 coin was preferred than the loss of 3 coins. We also added a third condition of both mixed reward and punishments, which was commonly used in studies that only examined PE valence effects. In this third condition, which we will refer to as mixed condition, the preferred outcome was to receive 1 coin compared to losing 1 coin. Notably, PE valence can be additionally examined in any of the block-wise valence conditions. A pilot study indicated that the task can be applied to both clinical and neurotypical 8-18-year-old children and adolescents, and that their adaptation performance was modulated by valence and uncertainty. Our sample of the main study will include 120 children and adolescents between the age of 8 and 18, one clinical group (n=60) with diagnoses of anxiety, depression or ADHD, and a neurotypical group (n=60). We aim to delineate differences between psychiatric conditions (ADHD, anxiety, depression) for cognitive adaptation in respect to valence and uncertainty. We also aim to explore potential transdiagnostic effects of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology during cognitive adaptation. We will use both behavioral measures, such as accuracy, switching behavior and reaction time, as well as computational modeling measures, with the aim to capture adaptations in latent prediction-related parameters. How one learns in the learning conditions that differ by uncertainty and valence might depend upon the current symptom severity, both in clinical as well as neurotypical groups. Therefore, our aim of this study is to examine individual differences in clinical symptoms and their effects on uncertainty and valence during learning. We will further explore the moderating roles of the individual’s environment, state and trait, such as socioeconomic disparities, motivational traits and momentary affective state. Research Questions (RQ) Effects of Depression Major depressive disorder is an affective disorder whose primary symptoms are low mood and loss of motivation and pleasure in daily life. Despite its primarily affective symptoms, there is robust evidence of cognitive deficits in depression (Gotlib & Joormann, 2010), which may be related to the hypoactivity of serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline (Eshel & Roiser, 2010; Ruhé, Mason, & Schene, 2007). Of note, depression is considered an internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders (Achenbach, 1966; Carver, Johnson, & Timpano, 2017), with a large overlap in symptoms such as with anxiety disorders, specifically within a distress-based or negative affect symptom cluster (Watson, 2005). The overlap in negative affect symptoms between depression and anxiety may contribute to shared differences during RL. Although previous studies have found similarities and differences in the learning effects of depression and anxiety, a direct comparison with a task that manipulates both valence and uncertainty during RL has not been done. DEP-RQ1: What are the effects of depression on uncertainty conditions during RL? Studies that used RL with stable environments, reflecting low uncertainty, found reduced learning performance (Elliott, Sahakian, Herrod, Robbins, & Paykel, 1997; Steele, Meyer, & Ebmeier, 2004). Two studies used computational models to examine learning processes in depression, with in inconsistent results. The studies examined various parameters, including learning rate and reward sensitivity. Learning rate serves as a metric for quantifying how individuals update future values, whereas reward sensitivity reflects an individual's responsiveness to perceived outcomes. Reward learning rates were negatively related to anhedonic depression symptoms (Brown et al., 2021), but unrelated in a meta-analysis (Huys, Pizzagalli, Bogdan, & Dayan, 2013). Reward sensitivity in turn was either reduced (Huys et al., 2013) or increased (Brown et al., 2021). These contrasting findings may partly be explained by the use of a pavlovian and an instrumental learning task, respectively, and our study will focus on instrumental learning. One study reported reduced choice sensitivity in a more depressed student group (Kunisato et al., 2012), suggesting that depression is associated with less value-dependent choice behavior. Because the parameters of reward sensitivity and choice sensitivity are computationally interchangeable, current models cannot answer whether the parameters captured decision-related or feedback-related effects of depression (Browning, Paulus, & Huys, 2022). Additional parameter differences have been reported, such as a more negative valuation of received outcomes during punishment learning in depression (Brown et al., 2021), suggesting valence effects, or a decreased attentional breadth in relation to higher trait rumination (Hitchcock et al., 2022), suggesting impaired attention and memory processes. Further studies are needed to establish robust links between depressive symptoms and computational parameters in low uncertainty learning conditions during RL. Consistent with tasks of relatively low uncertainty, studies with more volatile tasks such as probabilistic reversal learning have reported impaired learning performance in depression (Dombrovski et al., 2010; Dombrovski, Szanto, Clark, Reynolds, & Siegle, 2013; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, Vo, Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Mukherjee, Lee, Kazinka, D Satterthwaite, & Kable, 2020; Must, Horvath, Nemeth, & Janka, 2013; Rupprechter, Stankevicius, Huys, Steele, & Seriès, 2018). Less optimal switching behavior in term of lower win-stay and higher lose-switch behavior (particularly after misleading feedback) was also observed (Dickstein et al., 2010; Dombrovski et al., 2015; Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Murphy, Michael, Robbins, & Sahakian, 2003; Taylor Tavares et al., 2008). In contrast, only one study also reported no learning differences in relation to depression (Brolsma et al., 2020). Some studies applied computational models, with inconsistent findings, similar to studies with low uncertainty tasks. One study reported reduced learning rates in depressed individuals compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020), while another study did not find such differences (Brolsma et al., 2020). Additionally, reduced choice sensitivity was reported (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020; Rupprechter et al., 2018), as well as a decreased memory of observed rewards, putatively due to working memory constraints (Rupprechter et al., 2018). Overall, behavioral findings show a relatively consistent picture of reduced learning performance in depression under both low and high uncertainty learning. However, these studies mostly used tasks of mixed-valence or reward conditions only, and the picture regarding uncertainty under punishment learning is less clear. Further, robust links between computational parameters, depression and uncertainty are yet to be established. There is some evidence that learning rate and choice sensitivity estimates are lower across uncertainty conditions. DEP-RQ2: What are the effects of depression on valence conditions during RL? Past RL studies of depression have usually used either conditions for reward and punishment learning separately, or they used PE valence within a reward task to determine valence effects (i.e. gaining more or less than expected). While both PE valence as well as valence condition (learning from positive or from negative feedback) have been studied extensively in depression, these valence effects may represent distinct characteristics on learning which need to be disentangled. To shed light on the relevance of the way valence is manipulated in relation to depression, our study includes 3 valence conditions: reward learning, punishment learning and mixed valence learning. Of note, many studies that have examined reward learning used a mixed valence feedback scheme. For reward learning, past studies found reduced learning performance in depression (Forbes, Shaw, & Dahl, 2007; Herzallah et al., 2013; Morris, Bylsma, Yaroslavsky, Kovacs, & Rottenberg, 2015; Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, Sahakian, & Drevets, 2012). Reduced reward learning was related to reduced striatal activation following positive PE (Robinson, Cools, Carlisi, et al., 2012). Further, both reduced striatal activations and reduced reward learning were a predictor of future depressive symptoms during adolescence (Forbes et al., 2007; Morgan, Olino, McMakin, Ryan, & Forbes, 2013). In terms of positive PE effects on learning, a simulation meta-analysis found lower learning rates, while results from the conventional meta-analysis shows only showed lower learning rates at trend (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Estimation tasks found a reduced positivity bias (Garrett et al., 2014; Sharot, Korn, & Dolan, 2011), which may implicate a reduced positivity and confirmation bias in depression during RL as well. Here, learning rates from positive and confirmatory PE are usually higher than from negative and disconfirmatory PE, which leads to higher learning performance compared to symmetric learning rates (Palminteri & Lebreton, 2022). In contrast, a developmental study found no effect of depressive symptoms on learning rate asymmetry (Nussenbaum, Velez, Washington, Hamling, & Hartley, 2022). In brief, both reward condition and positive PE effects suggest that reward learning may be reduced in depression, but the underlying computational mechanisms during RL are less clear. For punishment learning, two studies found higher learning performance relative to that of reward learning (Herzallah et al., 2013; Timmer, Sescousse, Van Der Schaaf, Esselink, & Cools, 2017). An acute lowering of serotonin levels in healthy individuals through depleting its precursor tryptophan lead to enhanced punishment learning, which suggests that low serotonin increase punishment learning, but do not affect reward learning (Cools, Robinson, & Sahakian, 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012). Indeed, depressed individuals with SSRI medication showed lower punishment learning relative to unmedicated depression individuals, but no differences in reward leaning (Herzallah et al., 2013). Studies with computational models examined either punishment learning rates or negative PE learning rates. Punishment learning rates showed inconsistent findings, with higher learning rates in depressed and anxious individuals compared to healthy controls (Aylward et al., 2019), or lower learning rates in depressed compared to healthy controls (Mukherjee, Filipowicz, et al., 2020). In terms of negative PE valence, a meta-analysis found higher learning rates in a simulation approach, while results in the conventional approach showed no effect (Pike & Robinson, 2022). Another study did not find changed learning rates in relation to depression, but a higher shift towards perceiving punishments as larger (Brown et al., 2021). To summarize, despite some inconsistencies in the literature, both punishment condition and negative PE effects point towards enhanced punishment learning in depression. Overall, the finding of both reduced reward learning and enhanced punishment learning in depression has led to the idea that depressed individuals differ in their subjective valuation and exhibit an exaggerated loss aversion compared to what prospect theory has established in healthy individuals (Chen, Takahashi, Nakagawa, Inoue, & Kusumi, 2015). There is evidence of learning deviations under both valence conditions in depression, but it is yet unclear whether these emerge in earlier developmental phases. DEP-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters during RL? Depression is a highly heterogeneous disorder, which might explain some of the inconsistencies found during learning in depression. A closer look at specific symptom effects might prove useful to shed new light on the effects on RL. Depression is often distinguished by the symptom clusters of anhedonia and negative affect. Anhedonia is the loss of pleasure or lack of reactivity to pleasurable stimuli. While negative affect in depression shows considerable overlap with anxiety disorders, anhedonia is more independent of anxiety, but overlapping considerably with other disorders such as schizophrenia or addiction (Pizzagalli, 2014). Negative affect or distress putatively is influenced by serotonergic function, whereas anhedonia depends more upon dopaminergic function (Nutt, 2008). Therefore, these two symptom clusters within depression may have distinct effects on learning behavior. Since serotonergic function has been shown to specifically target punishment learning (Cools et al., 2008; Robinson, Cools, & Sahakian, 2012), it is possible that enhanced punishment learning can be linked to negative affect. A direct link between negative affect and punishment learning in depression has been previously reported, but remains understudied (Brown et al., 2021). Anhedonia in turn has been studied extensively, and consistently identified related reduced striatal activations during reward anticipation and reward delivery in adolescents and adults (Gradin et al., 2011; Stringaris et al., 2015). Anhedonic symptoms were related to less optimal switching behavior (Pizzagalli, Iosifescu, Hallett, Ratner, & Fava, 2008), reduced learning rates from positive and negative PE (Chase et al., 2010), specifically to reduced reward learning rates (Brown et al., 2021), and to more exploratory decision-making during learning (Harlé, Guo, Zhang, Paulus, & Yu, 2017). Overall, this suggests that anhedonic and negative affect symptoms clusters may have differential effects during RL, and further studies are needed to examine how negative affect modulates RL. Effects of Anxiety Anxiety disorders can differ with regard to the situation (e.g. social anxiety) or the objects (e.g. specific phobia) that cause symptoms such as aversive affective state, somatic stress symptoms and perception of sustained threat. Anxiety is increasingly recognized as developmental disorder (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), and together with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, it has been categorized as internalizing disorder, as opposed to externalizing disorders, e.g. ADHD and conduct disorder (Achenbach, 1966; Carver et al., 2017). Among internalizing disorders, conditions can be further divided into fear-based or distress-based symptom clusters (Watson, 2005), however, other symptom clusters have been distinguished as well (e.g. somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms). Maladaptive uncertainty learning has been found for both the fear-based (Brown, Price, & Dombrovski, 2023) and the distress-based symptom clusters (Hammond, Xu, Ai, & Van Dam, 2023). A study that distinguished by somatic and cognitive symptom clusters found stronger influences of the somatic symptom cluster on RL (Fan, Gershman, & Phelps, 2022; Wise & Dolan, 2020). Neurally, individuals with anxiety disorders exhibited higher noradrenaline levels (Kalk, Nutt, & Lingford-Hughes, 2011) and dysregulated serotonergic modulation (Dayan & Huys, 2009), which may relate to the observed learning disruptions. Further, structural brain differences have been found to mediate the effect of unpredictability experienced during childhood on anxiety and depression symptoms in adults, which suggests that the uncertainty experienced as a child increases the risk for anxiety and depression and may lead to structural brain changes during development (Wang, Cao, Zheng, Chen, & Zhu, 2023). It remains unclear to what extent anxiety symptoms explain learning disruptions across both clinical and normative anxiety symptoms equally, and whether age modulates these effects during development. In this study, we will examine how effects of anxiety symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence in both clinical and typically developing individuals. ANX-RQ1: What are the effects of anxiety on uncertainty conditions during RL? The current literature suggests that uncertainty processing is central to learning disruptions in anxiety symptoms (Brown et al., 2023). The aversive consequence of uncertainty in anxiety has been shown to impair behavioral learning performance already during low uncertainty, such as expected uncertainty, which is inherent in probabilistic but stable learning (LaFreniere & Newman, 2019). Under high uncertainty, such as in volatile environments, higher anxiety reduced learning performance and predicted aberrant switching behavior, such as reduced win-stay, increased or reduced lose-shift behavior (Dickstein et al., 2010; Hein, de Fockert, & Ruiz, 2021; Huang, Thompson, & Paulus, 2017; Piray, Ly, Roelofs, Cools, & Toni, 2019; Xia, Xu, Yang, Gu, & Zhang, 2021). Maladaptive uncertainty learning may be related to chronic underconfidence in individuals with anxiety and depression, as they showed disproportionally larger updates from low confidence decisions (Katyal, Huys, Dolan, & Fleming, 2023). One study also reported an inverted-u-shaped effect of trait anxiety on learning: both low and high trait anxiety were related to lower behavioral learning performance compared to intermediate trait anxiety (Aberg, Toren, & Paz, 2022). A nonlinear effect of anxiety on learning may be linked to the nonlinear effect of arousal on optimal task engagement that is attributed to noradrenaline function (Eckstein, Guerra-Carrillo, Miller Singley, & Bunge, 2017). Computational studies suggest that individuals with higher trait anxiety or with internalizing symptoms have difficulty adjusting their learning rate to the learning environments. Specifically, higher trait anxiety or internalizing symptoms predicted smaller learning rate adjustments between stable and volatile learning environments, which reflects less flexible learning (Browning, Behrens, Jocham, O’Reilly, & Bishop, 2015; Gagne, Zika, Dayan, & Bishop, 2020). The less flexible updating in relation to high internalizing symptoms was further characterized by a reduced updating after positive PE when action-outcome contingencies where changing throughout the learning block (Gagne et al., 2020). Beyond effects on learning rates, there is evidence that anxiety modulates decision-making during RL. Trait anxiety predicted the strategy by which participants explored alternative choices: higher trait anxiety participants exhibited a shift from value-based exploration towards uncertainty-related exploration (Aberg et al., 2022). This is in line with another study which reported that among individuals that were best described by a value-free choice strategy win-stay-lose-shift, higher state anxiety individuals exploited this value-free strategy more. Overall, anxiety may enhance less optimal choice strategies at the cost of value-based decision-making. To summarize, the currently literature found that anxiety has disruptive effects on learning under both low and high levels of uncertainty. Behavioral studies found reduced learning performance and less optimal switching behavior, but learning performance effects may also be nonlinearly related to anxiety symptoms. Computational studies have focused on anxiety effects between high and low uncertainty, but it is unclear how parameters of each uncertainty level are related to anxiety. These studies reported maladaptive learning rate adjustments to the statistics of the environment, as well as a shift from value-based to value-free decision behavior, but no studies have reported both effects of learning rate and decision behavior. Further, some studies reported combined effects of anxiety and depression, and it is not clear to what extent anxiety and depression show distinct effects on learning. Despite its relevance of anxiety disorders during development (Leonardo & Hen, 2008), it is unknown whether anxiety disrupts learning in children and adolescents similarly as in adults, since the only study with a pediatric sample found no behavioral effects of anxiety and did not apply computational models (Dickstein et al., 2010). This study will examine how anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents, both of clinical and normative symptoms range, show effects of uncertainty that are independent of depressive symptoms. ANX-RQ2: What are the effects of anxiety on valence conditions during RL? The effects of anxiety on uncertainty learning were most consistently found during punishment or threat learning, both behaviorally and computationally (Aberg et al., 2022; Browning et al., 2015; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019; Piray et al., 2019). Some studies extended the found effects of uncertainty to both punishment and reward learning (Aberg et al., 2022; Gagne et al., 2020; LaFreniere & Newman, 2019) or did not find effects in either valence condition (Dickstein et al., 2010). Other studies did not examine reward and punishment separately, but they presented both rewards and punishments mixed within learning blocks; these studies found behaviorally reduced learning performance (Xia et al., 2021), and in a simulation meta-analysis higher negative PE learning rates and lower positive PE learning across depression and anxiety (Pike & Robinson, 2022). A recent study using naturalistic learning found that higher negative PE learning rates explained lower and less precise expectations about future academic outcomes and predicted the long-term development of anxiety (Villano et al., 2023). In brief, this new body of literature suggests that higher anxiety symptoms may predict aberrant processing of negative outcomes, both under punishment learning and from negative PE, and that this may be a risk factor for the development of anxiety. It is unknown whether anxiety modulates processing of negative outcomes already in children and adolescents. ANX-RQ3: Are there differential effects of anxiety symptom clusters during RL? The distinctions between fear-based and distress-based anxiety symptoms as well as somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety symptoms have helped to examine learning disruptions in relation to more specific symptom clusters. Although it has been proposed that fear-based symptoms exert stronger effects on RL (Brown et al., 2023), the current literature suggests that multiple symptom clusters may have effects on RL. Studies that specified effects of symptom clusters found that somatic anxiety reduced uncertainty-directed exploration, whereas cognitive anxiety increased uncertainty-directed exploration (Fan et al., 2022). Similarly, divergent roles of these two symptoms clusters have been found during aversive learning (Wise & Dolan, 2020). The previously described maladaptive learning rate adjustment between stable and volatile environments was attributed to distress-based symptoms, which are less specific to anxiety and likely reflect internalizing symptoms more broadly (Gagne et al., 2020; Hammond et al., 2023). Importantly, the effects of fear-based symptoms have not been examined in these two studies. Therefore, it is unknown whether the effects on learning rate can be better attributed to fear-based symptoms rather than to distress-based symptoms. Since maladaptive learning rate adjustments were also linked to reduced pupil dilation changes, reflecting noradrenaline function and arousal, physiological anxiety symptoms may underlie uncertainty-related effects (Browning et al., 2015). The divergent effects of somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms on decision behavior are difficult to interpret, but it seems that the role of somatic anxiety symptoms is more in line with the effect of a study that did not distinguish by symptom clusters (Aberg et al., 2022). The current definitions of symptoms clusters vary (eg. fear-based and distress-based symptoms, somatic and cognitive anxiety symptoms), which makes is difficult to integrate findings. Effects of ADHD Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is commonly described as a developmental brain disorder, in which the hypofunctioning of noradrenaline and dopamine lead to reduced cognitive performance such as during RL (Plichta & Scheres, 2014; Ziegler, Pedersen, Mowinckel, & Biele, 2016). Notably, not just neurotransmitter hypofunction such as in ADHD, but also hyperfunction such as during stress (Arnsten, 1999, 2009) has been shown to impair performance. Therefore, an inverted-u-shaped relationship between neurotransmitter function and cognitive performance has been proposed (Biederman & Spencer, 1999; Del Campo, Chamberlain, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2011). Beyond functional differences, the effect of ADHD has been observed in the brain structure, likely as long-term consequence of brain neuroplasticity. Brain regions implicated in reward processing and value representation, such as the ventral striatum and the orbitofrontal cortex, exhibited smaller volumes in individuals with ADHD compared to controls (Carmona et al., 2009; Hesslinger et al., 2002). The well-established biological differences in ADHD have led to effective psychopharmacological treatments in ameliorating ADHD symptoms. Stimulants such as methylphenidate are used to target and normalize dopamine function. Some studies that controlled for methylphenidate use showed that it improved learning performance (Luman, Goos, & Oosterlaan, 2015; Pelham, Milich, & Walker, 1986), which suggests that medication use is a relevant confounding factor for examining effects of ADHD on learning. It remains unclear whether ADHD symptoms explain learning differences only by diagnostic categorization such as reported in case-control studies, or whether these learning effects also extend to subclinical ADHD symptoms in clinical and neurotypically developing groups. Further, it remains unclear whether the effects of ADHD on RL are more pronounced during sensitive developmental periods such as during childhood and adolescence. In this study, we will examine how effects of ADHD symptoms are present during RL under different levels of uncertainty and valence. ADHD-RQ1: What are the effects of ADHD on uncertainty conditions during RL? Several studies have examined the effects of ADHD diagnosis on RL under different levels of uncertainty (Hulsbosch et al., 2021). Under low uncertainty, studies showed mixed findings: some found no effects of ADHD (Luman et al., 2015; Oades & Müller, 1997; Wiesner, Molzow, Prehn-Kristensen, & Baving, 2017), while other found reduced learning (Frank, Santamaria, O’Reilly, & Willcutt, 2007; Gabay, Shahbari-Khateb, & Mendelsohn, 2018; Luman et al., 2021; Shephard, Jackson, & Groom, 2016). Additionally two studies reported slower and more variable reaction times (Frank et al., 2007; Gabay et al., 2018). Under high uncertainty, studies show similarly mixed evidence: two studies found no effects of ADHD (Chantiluke et al., 2015; Finger et al., 2008), one study reported computational effects (Hauser et al., 2014) in terms of a more explorative choice behavior, and two studies showed reduced learning performance in ADHD compared to a control group (Itami & Ca, 2002; Shephard et al., 2016). To summarize, the current literature shows mixed findings during RL under both low and high uncertainty. If an effect was found for ADHD, learning performance was reduced, choices were more erratic, and reaction times were slower and more variable. This study aims to shed new light on whether uncertainty modulates effects of ADHD symptoms during RL, and how these effects can be captured both behaviorally and computationally. ADHD-RQ2: What are the effects of ADHD on valence conditions during RL? No studies have examined the effects of punishment learning in ADHD so far. One study has reported differences in response to positive and negative feedback: negative feedback elicited stronger activations in children with ADHD compared to neurotypical children (Van Meel, Oosterlaan, Heslenfeld, & Sergeant, 2005). Given that the abovementioned brain deficits in ADHD were found in relation to reward learning, processing of negative feedback may be relatively spared and lead to an imbalance towards stronger processing of negative information compared to positive information. It is currently unknown whether the effects of ADHD might be less pronounced during punishment learning and learning from negative PE, compared to learning from reward and positive PE. ADHD-RQ3: Are there differential effects of the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness during RL? ADHD consists of a set of symptoms, most notably the symptom clusters hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattentiveness. While previous studies reported correlations of the symptom clusters to learning deficits (Gabay et al., 2018; Luman et al., 2015), it is currently unclear whether the symptom clusters show separable contributions to RL. Computational models may help to identify separable contributions. For example, one theoretical model showed that aberrant learning parameters reproduced impulsive behavior in a delayed response time task (Williams & Dayan, 2005). Impulsive and hyperactive symptoms might be to learning parameters such as learning rate. No study has reported learning rate effects of ADHD, although all theoretical models of ADHD agree that dopamine hypofunction leads to aberrant learning parameters (Frank et al., 2007; Sagvolden, Johansen, Aase, & Russell, 2005; Tripp & Wickens, 2008). Thus, it is unknown whether hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms and the underlying dopamine hypofunction specifically explain effects on learning rate. The attention deficit in ADHD has not been linked to computational parameters yet. However, noradrenaline function, which is fundamental in attentional processes, has been linked decision behavior during RL (Dubois et al., 2021, 2020; Frank et al., 2007). In contrast, one influential theoretical account of ADHD has linked attention deficits to the dopaminergic mesocortical pathway (Sagvolden et al., 2005). Therefore, it remains unclear whether inattentiveness in ADHD is specifically linked to noradrenergic function and attributed explorative decision behavior, as well as slower and more variable reaction times during RL.

The article discusses the optimal types of tasks and exercises that help students to effectively enrich their vocabulary in the Russian language textbook. In addition to the use of traditional types of vocabulary work, innovative ways to increase vocabulary that develop speech and broaden teachers' worldviews are also demonstrated

The article discusses the optimal types of tasks and exercises that help students to effectively enrich their vocabulary in the Russian language textbook. In addition to the use of traditional types of vocabulary work, innovative ways to increase vocabulary that develop speech and broaden teachers' worldviews are also demonstrated

The article discusses the optimal types of tasks and exercises that help students to effectively enrich their vocabulary in the Russian language textbook. In addition to the use of traditional types of vocabulary work, innovative ways to increase vocabulary that develop speech and broaden teachers' worldviews are also demonstrated

The article discusses the optimal types of tasks and exercises that help students to effectively enrich their vocabulary in the Russian language textbook. In addition to the use of traditional types of vocabulary work, innovative ways to increase vocabulary that develop speech and broaden teachers' worldviews are also demonstrated

Group size and treatment intensity are understudied topics in mathematics intervention research. This study examined whether the treatment intensity and overall intervention effects of an empirically-validated Tier 2 mathematics intervention varied between intervention groups with 2:1 and 5:1 student-teacher ratios. Student practice opportunities and the quality of explicit instruction served as treatment intensity metrics. A total of 465 kindergarten students with mathematics difficulties from 136 intervention groups participated. Results suggested comparable performances between the 2:1 and 5:1 intervention groups on six outcome measures. Observation data indicated that the intensity of student practice opportunities differed by group size. Students in the 5:1 groups received more opportunities to practice with their peers, while students in the 2:1 groups participated in more frequent and higher quality individualized practice opportunities. Implications in terms of delivering Tier 2 interventions in small-group formats and engaging at-risk learners in meaningful practice opportunities are discussed. [This paper was published in "Journal of Learning Disabilities" v52 n2 p168-180 Mar 2019 (EJ1203634). The published article was titled "Examining the Impact of Group Size on the Treatment Intensity of a Tier 2 Mathematics Intervention within a Systematic Framework of Replication."]

We begin the article with a brief discussion of why groups are recommended in language teaching. After that, we describe what Cooperative Learning (CL) is. Then, we suggest ways in which CL and Information Technology (IT) fit well together. This is followed by some examples of how to combine CL with IT. [This article was published in Teaching of English Language and Literature," v13 n2 p5-8 1997.]

To develop adult learning groups in formal educational settings, the educator must understand the nature of learning in groups. Three types of group learning are instrumental, communicative, and emancipatory. The type of learning that occurs in groups varies according to the learning tasks and goals. Group learning that has as its goal the acquisition of instrumental knowledge is cooperative. The term collaborative describes group learning based on communicative knowledge. Transformative applies to learning groups that seek emancipatory knowledge. Cooperative learning focuses on the learning of individuals; as groups engage in collaborative or transformative learning, the distinction between individual and group learning becomes more invisible. The facilitator fosters, assists, supports, and helps with accomplishing learning tasks by sharing responsibilities with learners; establishes and maintains the group learning environment; and provides information about the group process. The facilitator's roles and responsibilities change to correspond to the group's purposes and goals. Size is an important characteristic of groups, with smaller groups (six or less) being more cohesive and productive. Facilitator-selected groups tend to perform better. Important considerations when structuring group learning for adults are the experience's purpose, an appropriate role for the facilitator, and group formation. (YLB)

The present study attempts to expand current question categorization schemes to identify question types that discriminate good learners from their peers in collaborative problem-solving groups. The study also explores the effects of person and task variables on students' question-asking behaviors in an effort to identify those that facilitate mathematics problem solving. Forty-seven fifth graders from two independent urban schools that use cooperative-learning methods participated in the study. Students were asked to solve fraction problems in one set containing continuous problems and in another set consisting of discrete problems. A question-categorization scheme was devised to code student requests to each other for information or assistance. No significant differences were found in the numbers of questions asked by students of high, low, or average ability. Although this appears contradictory to some previous results, it may be that including question types that were not exclusively help seeking explains the discrepancy. Overall, results indicate that type of task interacts with student characteristics and the setting to affect performance and students' peer-directed questions. Prior experience with cooperative-learning groups appears to have affected problem-solving and questioning performance. Two figures present study findings. (Contains 73 references.) (SLD)

Money laundering is a major global problem, enabling criminal organisations to hide their ill-gotten gains and to finance further operations. Prevention of money laundering is seen as a high priority by many governments, however detection of money laundering without prior knowledge of predicate crimes remains a significant challenge. Previous detection systems have tended to focus on individuals, considering transaction histories and applying anomaly detection to identify suspicious behaviour. However, money laundering involves groups of collaborating individuals, and evidence of money laundering may only be apparent when the collective behaviour of these groups is considered. In this paper we describe a detection system that is capable of analysing group behaviour, using a combination of network analysis and supervised learning. This system is designed for real-world application and operates on networks consisting of millions of interacting parties. Evaluation of the system using real-world data indicates that suspicious activity is successfully detected. Importantly, the system exhibits a low rate of false positives, and is therefore suitable for use in a live intelligence environment.

56p

56p

The impact on achievement of (a) cooperative learning in which members discussed how well their group was functioning and how they could improve its effectiveness, (b) cooperative learning without any group processing, and (c) individualistic learning were compared on daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention. Eighty-four third-grade students were randomly assigned to the three conditions stratifying for sex and ability level. The results indicate that the high-, medium-, and low-achieving students in the cooperation with group processing condition achieved higher on all three measures than did the students in the other two conditions. Students in the cooperation without group processing condition, furthermore, achieved higher on all three measures than did the students in the individualistic condition. Keywords include: Cooperation; Achievement; and Group Processing.

This is a summative report based on Year Three data from the MSP Grant Project entitled, "Content Development for Investigations" (CoDE:I). The purpose of the MSP grant program was to develop standards-based elementary mathematics teachers by giving teachers the tools to teach with a new standards-based mathematics curriculum, "Investigations in Number, Data, and Space" ("Investigations"). The participants were teachers in two school systems located near a large metropolitan city in the southeastern United States. System One is a large, urban school system and System Two is a smaller suburban school system in a neighboring city. The two school systems conducted professional development separately and on different days throughout the grant program, but the overall content and focus of the professional development remained consistent. The professional development facilitators worked with both groups of teachers. Since the MSP project is not a longitudinal design, teachers participants exit from the program at the end of the academic year. The focus of this report is to examine the impacts of the professional development on teacher beliefs, practices, mathematics content knowledge, and student learning outcomes.

The present contribution is situated in the framework of a broad government project (entitled Pacte pour un Enseignement d'Excellence) and is specifically devoted to the learning and teaching of modern languages. Our group has been working on the collection, selection, and validation of innovative tools for foreign language learning targeting all levels of proficiency in compulsory education. The present paper reports on a case study that addresses reading strategies outside the classroom for Dutch as a foreign language at A1 level and using a mobile hunt in the Hergé Museum4 (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). The intended outcomes of our case study include (1) the promotion of mobile and classroom Open Educational Practices (OEPs) for L2 reading, (2) the development of in-service teachers' and learners' digital literacy skills (including among others the co-construction of Open Educational Resources (OERs) and reflective practices on image rights), and (3) the creation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and communities of practice. The Actionbound mobile app was used for the mobile hunt. The participants involved in the case study include three researchers, one teacher trainer, 11 pre-service Teachers (psTs) and two classroom groups of Dutch learners (fifth year of primary school). The study setup (including both the teacher training aspects and the activities) is detailed and illustrated, together with the suggestions that emerged from the questionnaires and follow-up focus group discussions. [For the complete volume, "New Case Studies of Openness in and beyond the Language Classroom," see ED596829.]

Grade 7 mathematics students (n=18) were audiotaped while working in cooperative learning groups on 4 occasions over a 16 week period. After the second and third recordings, students were given edited transcripts of their discussions and were trained in how to interpret them. They used an instrument to appraise their group processes 1-2 times per week thereafter. The self-assessment had a beneficial impact on the frequency and quality of help seeking and help giving, and on student attitudes toward asking for help. The effect of the assessment procedures was attributed to three factors: (1) the feedback strengthened helpfulness norms built up in the classroom over the previous 4 months of cooperative learning implementation; (2) the feedback increased students' skill in asking for and giving help; and (3) the assessment enhanced students' self-efficacy. The paper includes the group appraisal instrument, coding scheme, and questions for comparing transcripts. Contains 65 references. (Author/MKR)

Using small learning groups in graduate education is a way to prepare learners to meet the challenges they face as professionals and to enrich and facilitate adult learning in ways that cannot be accomplished as well by members working alone. This technique also helps graduate students develop the skills needed to work productively as group members. The most effective use for small groups is in researching and learning experiences that do not have well-structured processes and only one right answer so that the experiences and strengths of various group members can be used to solve problems or create projects. Examples of profitable group learning situations with graduate students include courses in which students learn to write grants or conduct program evaluation. Maturity, the ability of group members to respect each others' feelings and viewpoints, and managing conflict are qualities needed by members of successful learning groups. Group learning has several strengths: increasing group members' confidence, increased knowledge through exchange of ideas, increased creativity through shared responsibility, and the opportunity for people to get to know others in work settings. Limitations to group learning include the uneven contributions of group members, the knowledge levels of group participants, and the difficulty of evaluating performance and assigning grades. Instructors of small groups of graduate students should step back and assume the role of facilitator, offering help only when group members cannot solve their own problems. (Contains 22 references.) (KC)

The aim of this paper is to present "the three steps method" of the self-formation of collaborative groups in a problem-based learning environment. The self-formation of collaborative groups is based on sharing of accountability among students for solving instructional problems. The steps of the method are planning collaborative problem solving, self-evaluation of students, and building collaborative groups. The planning comprises determination of the nomenclature of higher order thinking (HOT) skills, defining the instructional problems and their complexity levels, creating problem groups according to the complexity levels, setting the problem-relevant HOT skills, determining the accountability measure and the assessments of accountability for solving the problems. The self-evaluation includes self-detection of personal HOT skills, measurement of the diversity between the personal HOT skills and the problem-relevant skills based on the proposed diversity measure, and self-evaluation of willingness and desire of a student to take accountability for solving the instructional problems. The personal willingness is evaluated by the diversity measure. The desire is guided by the accountability assessments for problem solving. Coordination of the self-evaluation outcomes allows building collaborative groups. A group's composition is adjusted by the specific requirements of an instructor.

These revised Social Studies standards align with the College, Career, and Civic Readiness (C3) standards developed in partnership with the National Council for the Social Studies. In addition, the current version of the Learning Standards incorporates the Common Core State Standards and other revisions recommended by Washington's statewide cadre of K-12 social studies teachers. Created by Washington Social Studies teacher leaders, administrators, content experts, civic organizations, and stakeholder groups, these standards reflect the breadth and depth of Social Studies content. Perhaps the most important revision to the Social Studies standards is the movement of Social Studies skills to the forefront. While the former standards (revised in 2008) contained a skills section, the new standards recognize that the ability to understand and apply reasoning skills; apply research; deliberate, form, and evaluate positions are important skills not only for Social Studies, but for success in any discipline. Standards include: (1) Elementary School Standards by Discipline (Grades K-5); (2) Middle School Standards by Discipline (Grades 6-8); and (3) High School Standards by Discipline (Grades 9-12). [Cover title varies: "Social Studies Learning Standards."]