Attentional bias and response inhibition in obese individuals: A systematic review

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e95
Author(s):  
Renee Cachia ◽  
Joshua Hendrikse ◽  
Melissa Hayden
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Edward Bartlett

Historically, smokers were considered a single homogeneous group, but over the past two decades research has increasingly focused on differentiating daily and non-daily smokers. Despite fundamentally different smoking habits and motives, daily and non-daily smokers have similar cessation rates. In order to understand why both groups may experience a similar difficulty quitting smoking, this thesis explored neurocognitive mechanisms associated with addictive behaviour. In order to profile these mechanisms, a systematic review was conducted, highlighting there was a gap to address in two areas of research relating to drive and control. Study One (N = 60) and Study Two (N = 166) investigated attentional bias towards smoking cues using the visual probe task, finding there was no meaningful difference between daily and non-daily smokers in trait-level attentional bias. Study Three (N = 28) measured ERP components associated with inhibitory control (Go/NoGo task) and error processing (Eriksen Flanker task). There were no significant effects of interest, but the sample size was smaller than planned. This thesis made three contributions to the study of addictive behaviour. First, the systematic review highlighted that research investigating lighter and heavier smokers has a problematic level of heterogeneity in the definitions used to define the groups. Second, there was no meaningful difference in attentional bias between daily and non-daily smokers, supporting contemporary theories that attentional bias may be best conceptualised as a state-level construct. Finally, internal consistency estimates of the ERP measures of inhibitory control and error processing supported previous research reporting good psychometric properties. Overall, this thesis presented a focused profile of measures relating to drive and control neurocognitive mechanisms, but there were no meaningful differences between daily and non-daily smokers. If these mechanisms are important to addictive behaviour, future research will have to investigate their role using alternative designs.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Hardman ◽  
Andrew Jones ◽  
Sam Burton ◽  
Jay Duckworth ◽  
Lauren McGale ◽  
...  

Theoretical models suggest that food-related visual attentional bias (AB) may be related to appetitive motivational states and individual differences in body weight; however, findings in this area are equivocal. We conducted a systematic review and series of meta-analyses to determine if there is a positive association between food-related AB and: (1.) body mass index (BMI) (number of effect sizes (k)=110), (2.) hunger (k=98), (3.) subjective craving for food (k=35), and (4.) food intake (k=44). Food-related AB was robustly associated with craving (r = .134 (95% CI .061, .208); p < .001), food intake (r = .085 (95% CI .038, .132); p < .001), and hunger (r = .048 (95% CI .016, .079); p = .003), but these correlations were small. Food-related AB was unrelated to BMI (r =.008 (95% CI -.020, .035); p = .583) and this result was not moderated by type of food stimuli, method of AB assessment, or the subcomponent of AB that was examined. Furthermore, in a between-groups analysis (k = 22) which directly compared participants with overweight/obesity to healthy-weight control groups, there was no evidence for an effect of weight status on food-related AB (Hedge’s g = 0.104, (95% CI -0.050, 0.258); p =.186). Taken together, these findings suggest that food-related AB is sensitive to changes in the motivational value of food, but is unrelated to individual differences in body weight. Our findings question the traditional view of AB as a trait-like index of preoccupation with food and have implications for novel theoretical perspectives on the role of food AB in appetite control and obesity.


Appetite ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 157 ◽  
pp. 104986
Author(s):  
Charlotte A. Hardman ◽  
Andrew Jones ◽  
Sam Burton ◽  
Jay J. Duckworth ◽  
Lauren S. McGale ◽  
...  

Appetite ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 151 ◽  
pp. 104710 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey E. Hagan ◽  
Ahmed Alasmar ◽  
Alexis Exum ◽  
Bernadette Chinn ◽  
Kelsie T. Forbush

2018 ◽  
Vol 191 ◽  
pp. 270-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Ross MacLean ◽  
Mehmet Sofuoglu ◽  
Emily Brede ◽  
Cendrine Robinson ◽  
Andrew J. Waters

Neuron ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 886-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Zilverstand ◽  
Anna S. Huang ◽  
Nelly Alia-Klein ◽  
Rita Z. Goldstein

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Congrong Shi ◽  
Steven Taylor ◽  
Michael Witthöft ◽  
Xiayu Du ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Attentional bias toward health-threat may theoretically contribute to the development and maintenance of health anxiety, but the empirical findings have been controversial. This study aimed to synthesize and explore the heterogeneity in a health-threat related attentional bias of health-anxious individuals, and to determine the theoretical model that better represents the pattern of attentional bias in health anxiety. Four databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies, with 17 articles (N = 1546) included for a qualitative review and 16 articles (18 studies) for a three-level meta-analysis (N = 1490). The meta-analytic results indicated that the health anxiety group, compared to the control group, showed significantly greater attentional bias toward health-threat (g = 0.256). Further analyses revealed that attentional bias type, paradigm, and stimuli type were significant moderators. Additionally, compared to the controls, health-anxious individuals displayed significantly greater attention maintenance (g = 0.327) but nonsignificant attention vigilance to health-threat (g = −0.116). Our results provide evidence for the attention maintenance model in health-anxious individuals. The implications for further research and treatment of elevated health anxiety in the context of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) were also discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 206 ◽  
pp. 107719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisling O'Neill ◽  
Bianca Bachi ◽  
Sagnik Bhattacharyya

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document