Based on the method listed in this study, where does it fall? experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational???

At first i thought correlational but I'm not sure.

Participants were recruited from a larger, school-based study of 873 sixth- and seventh-grade students from 3 public rural middle schools in North Carolina to participate in a longitudinal functionalmagnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study.We recruited 2 cohorts of participants at 12 to 13 years of age across 2 years of the study, leading to a sample size of 178 adolescents (148 students for cohort 1 and 30 for cohort 2). Of the recruited participants for cohort 1, 5 met exclusion criteria after consenting to the study and thus were excluded and not invited back for later waves (see the eMethods in the Supplement for exclusion criteria). Across all waves, 25 participants completed 1 time point, 36 completed 2 time points, and 112 completed 3 time points. All participants provided written informed consent or assent, and the University's Institutional Review Board approved all aspects of the study. Race and ethnicity were self-reported by participants. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline. For more information on study procedures, see the eMethods in the Supplement. Self-reported Social Media Use Participants reported frequency of checking at wave 1 only. For 3 popular social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat), participants were asked how many times per day they checked each platform, with answers grouped into 8 numerical score categories (1, <1 time per day; 2, 1 3, 2-3 times 4, 4-5 5, 6-10 6, 11-15 7, 16-20 8,>20 times per day).We recoded participants' scores to create an ordinal scale that captured social media checking frequency across a meaningful distribution that could be assessed quantitatively. A score of 1 was recoded to 0 and a score of 2 was recoded to 1. Scores between 3 and 7 were recoded to the average of the range of Key Points Question Is adolescents' frequency of checking behaviors on 3 social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat) associated with longitudinal changes in functional brain development across adolescence? Findings In this cohort study of 169 sixth- and seventh-grade students, participants who engaged in habitual checking behaviors showed a distinct neurodevelopmental trajectory within regions of the brain comprising the affective salience, motivational, and cognitive control networks in response to anticipating social rewards and punishments compared with those who engaged in nonhabitual checking behaviors. Meaning These results suggest that habitual checking of social media in early adolescence may be longitudinally associated with changes in neural sensitivity to anticipation of social rewards and punishments, which could have implications for psychological adjustment. Association of Habitual Checking Behaviors on Social Media With Functional Brain Development Original Investigation Research jamapediatrics.com (Reprinted) JAMA Pediatrics February 2023 Volume 177, Number 2 161 2023 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ by a The University Of North Carolina Chapel Hill User on 02/22/2023 number of times checked; for example, if participants selected 6 for their Facebook use (ie, checked Facebook between 11 and 15 times per day), then their score was recoded to the average of 11 and 15 times, which in this case was 13 times checked. Reported scores of 8 (ie, checked >20 times per day) were recoded to 20 times checked. For each participant, the recoded checking behaviors on the 3 social media platforms were summed to create a total socialmedia checking score that ranged from 0 to 54 (mean [SD] checking behaviors per day, 11.85 [15.39]). Social Incentive Delay Task At each wave, participants attended a brain imaging session during which they completed the Social Incentive Delay task while undergoing fMRI to measure neural responses when anticipating receiving social rewards and avoiding social punishments.19,20On each trial, participants saw a cue (for 500 milliseconds) indicating whether the potential social feedback would be a reward, punishment, or neutral. After a variable delay (mean delay, 2000 milliseconds; range, 480-3900 milliseconds), a target appeared (for 300 milliseconds), at which point participants were instructed to respond by pressing a button as quickly as possible. The display of social feedback (for 1450 milliseconds) depended on the trial type and participants' reaction time. In the social reward condition, happy faces were the outcome of a fast response (hit), and blurred faces were the outcome of a slow response (miss). In the social punishment condition, a hit earned a blurred face, and a miss earned an angry face. In the control condition, a blurred face was always the outcome for both hits and misses. Trials were presented in an event-related design, with reward, punishment, and neutral trials randomly ordered. Participants completed 2 rounds of the task, totaling 116 trials (48 reward, 48 punishment, and 20 neutral trials). Task difficulty was standardized to a hit rate of approximately 50% for all participants by adjusting target duration to individual reaction times. Age-matched adolescent faces with emotional expressions of 24 ethnically diverse people (12 female) were used as reward and punishment stimuli. Photographs were taken from the National Institute ofMental Health Child Emotional Faces Picture Set. Participants were trained on the meaning of each cue and completed 12 practice trials prior to entering the scanner. Statistical Analysis fMRI Data Acquisition Imaging data were collected using a 3-T Magnatom Prisma MRI scanner (Siemens Healthineers). For specific fMRI image acquisition parameters and preprocessingmethods, see the eMethods in the Supplement. Individual level, fixed-effects analyseswere estimated using the general linear model convolved with a canonical hemodynamic response function in Statistical Parametric Mapping software package SPM12 (Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology). The task was modeled as event related with 8 conditions, including 3 anticipation conditions (reward, punishment, and neutral), 2 outcome conditions for both reward (hit ormiss) and punishment (hit or miss), and 1 outcome condition for neutral. Anticipation conditions were modeled as the onset of the cue and a duration of zero, and outcome conditions were modeled at the onset of the outcome with a duration of zero. Six motion parametersweremodeled as nuisance regressors. Using the general linearmodel, linear contrast images comparing each of the conditions of interest were calculated for each individual. The primary contrasts of interest for this study were reward anticipation vs neutral anticipation and punishment anticipation vs neutral anticipation, given our supposition that checking behaviors on social media platforms is motivated by the anticipation of social feedback