Of course, the study has some limitations that future research could helpfully address. This was the first study of its kind, and it examined expected value and prediction error learning cross-sectionally. The authors appear to suggest that poor prediction error learning will lead to inappropriate expected value signaling over time. However, it is also plausible that inappropriate expected value signaling will contribute to atypical patterns of prediction error over time. It would be interesting to study the development of both expected value and prediction error processing longitudinally using cross-lag models, in both typically developing youths and those with disruptive behavior disorders. Another consideration for the future concerns the type of reward used to study expected value and prediction error processing in youths with disruptive behavior disorders. A specific type of reward, money (although it was not clear whether the money was actually awarded to the participants), was used in this study. In the future, it might be helpful to map rewards that hold high subjective value to each participant and use these to study expected value and prediction error. In other words, are there differences in expected value and prediction error processing across the categories of reward, or does the subjective salience of the reward modulate the extent of expected value and prediction error processing abnormalities that we see in children with disruptive behavior disorders? It is unclear whether the subjective motivational value of the rewards in this study was equal among all participants and whether this contributed to the group differences. Finally, the authors themselves note that “currently, it is unknown what might cause such a fundamental reorganization of prediction error punishment signaling.” We know that disruptive behavior disorders are moderately to strongly heritable (8). We also know that parents of children with these disorders not only pass on a degree of genetic vulnerability to their children but can also provide a poor parenting environment (8). A wealth of research now indicates that the parenting environments of children with disruptive behavior disorders typically involve less positive and more negative reinforcement, as well as less consistent reinforcement contingencies, than the parenting environments of typically developing children. Thus, it may be that there are children who have the unfortunate “double whammy” of being genetically vulnerable to atypical expected value and prediction error processing and who experience childhood learning environments that further derail this processing. Genetically informative, longitudinal study designs would be helpful in investigating the etiology of the expected value and prediction error processing in children with disruptive behavior disorders.