Overall, results point toward the reward response being more appropriate for within-person rather than between-person study. This is a notable shift from typical focuses, but we’re excited in that we believe there’s a lot of potential for WP level of analysis

In our small sample, there isn’t a clean significant effect, but there does seem to be some potential that anticipatory reward responses (but not consummation) increased following the mood induction

Our mood induction paradigm (positive memory reflection) showed small but consistent increases in mood. This is notable particularly in contrast to general decreases in mood and alertness across time (especially in a scanner).

So, there is converging evidence from many studies that reward responses, like most task based activations, are not fit for trait-like markers or between-person study. All hope isn’t lost, though, what if the reward response instead reflect state-like, within-person variance?

We also used single-trial models to examine internal consistency. With how noisy single trials can be, we were surprised that the split-half reliability wasn’t too bad. It doesn’t seem like low test-retest reliability is just a matter of noise.

As others have found, test-retest reliability was very low. We show this reliability is not improved with precision imaging data with short retest intervals.

4 participants were scanned ~12 times each. Each session included 4 reward tasks, a positive mood induction, and resting state or neuromelanin (NM not yet available). With our focus on intraindividual changes in the reward response, we included a positive mood induction and tracked mood across time.

🚨🚨New precision imaging study and open dataset 🚨🚨 Featuring almost 200 functional runs acquired in 3-4d intervals and behavioral manipulations focused on intraindividual study of the reward response - The Night Owls Scan Club (NOSC) With @dvsmith.bsky.social and @olinotom.bsky.social!

Dissertation ✅️

8/ We also conclude by discussing how between-person and within-person research are important for distinct goals. Within-person processes are understudied (despite our interest), so there's plenty of room to grow. The growth of precision imaging is perfect for this gap!

7/ Along the way, we try to make idiographic concepts accessible to cognitive neuroscientists, like spooky words of ergodicity, stationarity, and Simpson's paradox. We chat about what we really mean by heterogeneity and generalizability.

2/ I’ll let the paper do most of the talking, but our main focus here is: Do our research questions in cognitive neuroscience reflect between-person questions or within-person questions? This simple question gets messy quite quickly.

Incredibly excited to be heading to UIC for my internship! Can't wait for the clinical and research opportunities, people to meet, and city to explore :) Also very grateful for the numerous folks who supported me throughout this process!

Don't know if this will hit a target audience but despite working on my diss and internship interviews, my biggest accomplishment in the past week: a 3 billion chip hand in Balatro