Toward a Mechanistic Understanding of How Variability in Neurobiology Shapes Individual Differences in Behavior

Neuroscientists have long observed that brain activity is naturally variable from moment-to-moment, but neuroimaging research has largely ignored the potential importance of this phenomenon. An emerging research focus on within-person brain signal variability is providing novel insights, and offering highly predictive, complementary, and even orthogonal views of brain function in relation to human lifespan development, cognitive performance, and various clinical conditions. As a result, brain signal variability is evolving as a bona fide signal of interest, and should no longer be dismissed as meaningless noise when mapping the human brain.

When exposed to the sights, sounds, smells and/or places that have been associated with rewards, such as food or drugs, some individuals have difficulty resisting the temptation to seek out and consume them. Others have less difficulty restraining themselves. Thus, Pavlovian reward cues may motivate maladaptive patterns of behavior to a greater extent in some individuals than in others. We are just beginning to understand the factors underlying individual differences in the extent to which reward cues acquire powerful motivational properties, and therefore, the ability to act as incentive stimuli. Here we review converging evidence from studies in both human and non-human animals suggesting that a subset of individuals are more “cue reactive”, in that certain reward cues are more likely to attract these individuals to them and motivate actions to get them. We suggest that those individuals for whom Pavlovian reward cues become especially powerful incentives may be more vulnerable to impulse control disorders, such as binge eating and addiction.

Developmental science, particularly developmental neuroscience, has substantially influenced the modern legal system. However, this science has typically failed to consider the role of puberty and pubertal hormones on development when considering antisocial behavior. This review describes major theoretical positions on the developmental neuroscience of antisocial behavior and highlights where basic developmental neuroscience suggests that the role of puberty and pubertal hormones should be considered. The implications of the current state of the science with respect to developmental neuroscience is considered, particularly what is known in light of development beyond puberty. This review shows that development continues to an older age for many youth than the legal system typically acknowledges. The plasticity of the brain that this continued development implies has implications for the outcome of interventions in the legal system in ways that have not been explored. Future directions for both developmental scientists and legal professions are recommended.