4.7 Article

Use of an operant task to estimate food reinforcement in adult humans with and without BED

期刊

OBESITY
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1816-1820

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2008.281

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK074046-03, P30 DK026687-28, R01 DK074046-01A1S1, R01 DK074046-02, P30 DK 26687, R01 DK074046-02S1, P30 DK026687, R01 DK074046-02S2, R01 DK074046-04, R01 DK074046, R01 DK074046-05] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the utility of food-reinforced operant task performance in modeling binge-eating disorder (BED). We hypothesized that food reinforcement after a caloric preload would be related to BED status, but not hunger. Methods and Procedures: We investigated the association between reports of hunger, binge tendency, and food reinforcement in a sample of 18 women (12 non-BED, 7 lean, 5 obese, and 6 obese BED). Participants completed two sessions of operant task performance after consuming 600 ml of flavored water or 600 ml of a 1 kcal/ml liquid meal. Results: Under the water condition, food reinforcement did not differ between the non-BED and BED groups, and was positively correlated with hunger ratings across all participants (r = 0.55, P = 0.023). Under the liquid meal condition, food reinforcement was significantly decreased compared with the water condition in the non-BED group (t = -2.6, P = 0.026). There was also a significant difference between the non-BED and BED groups in the fed condition (41 +/- 40, 117 +/- 60, F = 10.3, P = 0.005, non-BED vs. BED, respectively, mean s.d.). The correlation between food reinforcement and hunger remained significant only in the non-BED group (r = 0.69, P = 0.011). Discussion: Our results support the hypothesis that food reinforcement measured after a caloric preload is related to BED status but not hunger in those subjects with BED. The data also suggest that operant task performance can be useful in modeling BED criteria such as eating when not physically hungry..

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据