4.7 Article

Attentional and physiological processing of food images in functional dyspepsia patients: A pilot study

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-19112-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. People Programme of the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme under REA [607652]
  2. European Union's Seventh Framework Programme [607310]
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  4. University of Tubingen, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The food-related behavior of functional dyspepsia has been attracting more interest of late. This pilot study aims to provide evidence of the physiological, emotional, and attentional aspects of food processing in functional dyspepsia patients. The study was performed in 15 functional dyspepsia patients and 17 healthy controls after a standard breakfast. We measured autonomic nervous system activity using skin conductance response and heart rate variability, emotional response using facial electromyography, and visual attention using eyetracking during the visual stimuli of food/non-food images. In comparison to healthy controls, functional dyspepsia patients showed a greater craving for food, a decreased intake of food, more dyspeptic symptoms, lower pleasantness rating of food images (particularly of high fat), decreased low frequency/high frequency ratio of heart rate variability, and suppressed total processing time of food images. There were no significant differences of skin conductance response and facial electromyography data between groups. The results suggest that high level cognitive functions rather than autonomic and emotional mechanisms are more liable to function differently in functional dyspepsia patients. Abnormal dietary behavior, reduced subjective rating of pleasantness and visual attention to food should be considered as important pathophysiological characteristics in functional dyspepsia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available