Training response inhibition to reduce food consumption: Mechanisms, stimulus specificity and appropriate training protocols.
Training response inhibition to reduce food consumption: Mechanisms, stimulus specificity and appropriate training protocols.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.014
复制
发表时间：
2017-02-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Chambers CD
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams RC;Lawrence NS;Verbruggen F;Chambers CD
训练个体抑制他们对不健康食物的反应已被证明可以减少相对于对照组的食物摄入量。在这里，我们的目的是进一步探讨这些影响，通过调查的作用，刺激贬值，培训方案，并选择控制组。限制进食者接受抑制或控制训练，使用修改版本的停止信号或去/不去任务。训练后，我们测量了对食物的内隐态度（研究1）和食物消费（研究1和2）。在研究1中，我们使用了一个修改后的停止信号训练任务，增加了对自上而下控制的要求（使用跟踪程序和反馈来保持停止和前进过程之间的竞争）。在这项任务中，我们没有发现训练对内隐态度或食物消费有影响的证据，贝叶斯推理分析揭示了零假设的实质性证据。在研究2中，我们删除了停止信号训练中的反馈，以增加成功抑制的比率，并揭示了停止信号和去/不去训练对食物摄入的显著影响（分别与双反应和去训练相比），与停止信号任务相比，去/不去任务中的消耗差异更大。然而，从一个额外的被动控制组的结果表明，训练效果可能部分是由增加消费在去控制组，而减少消费的抑制组的证据是不确定的。因此，我们的研究结果支持的证据表明，抑制训练任务的抑制准确率更高，更有效，但提示谨慎解释的有效性，以实验室为基础的抑制训练作为行为改变的干预。
Training individuals to inhibit their responses towards unhealthy foods has been shown to reduce food intake relative to a control group. Here we aimed to further explore these effects by investigating the role of stimulus devaluation, training protocol, and choice of control group. Restrained eaters received either inhibition or control training using a modified version of either the stop-signal or go/no-go task. Following training we measured implicit attitudes towards food (Study 1) and food consumption (Studies 1 and 2). In Study 1 we used a modified stop-signal training task with increased demands on top-down control (using a tracking procedure and feedback to maintain competition between the stop and go processes). With this task, we found no evidence for an effect of training on implicit attitudes or food consumption, with Bayesian inferential analyses revealing substantial evidence for the null hypothesis. In Study 2 we removed the feedback in the stop-signal training to increase the rate of successful inhibition and revealed a significant effect of both stop-signal and go/no-go training on food intake (compared to double-response and go training, respectively) with a greater difference in consumption in the go/no-go task, compared with the stop-signal task. However, results from an additional passive control group suggest that training effects could be partly caused by increased consumption in the go control group whereas evidence for reduced consumption in the inhibition groups was inconclusive. Our findings therefore support evidence that inhibition training tasks with higher rates of inhibition accuracy are more effective, but prompt caution for interpreting the efficacy of laboratory-based inhibition training as an intervention for behaviour change.