4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Relation of obesity to consummatory and anticipatory food reward

Journal

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
Volume 97, Issue 5, Pages 551-560

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.03.020

Keywords

Obesity; Anticipatory and consummatory food reward; Neuroimaging review

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH064560-05, R01 MH064560-01A1, R01 MH064560-02S1, R01 MH064560, R01 MH064560-04S1, R01 MH064560-02, R01 MH064560-03, R01 MH064560-04] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This report reviews findings from studies that have investigated whether abnormalities in reward from food intake and anticipated food intake increase risk for obesity. Self-report and behavioral data suggest that obese relative to lean individuals show elevated anticipatory and consummatory food reward. Brain imaging studies suggest that obese relative to lean individuals show greater activation of the gustatory cortex (insula/frontal operculum) and oral somatosensory regions (parietal operculum and Rolandic operculum) in response to anticipated intake and consumption of palatable foods. Yet, data also suggest that obese relative to lean individuals show less activation in the dorsal striatum in response to consumption of palatable foods and reduced striatal D2 dopamine receptor density. Emerging prospective data also suggest that abnormal activation in these brain regions increases risk for future weight gain and that genotypes associated with lowered dopamine signaling amplify these predictive effects. Results imply that individuals who show greater activation in the gustatory cortex and somatosensory regions in response to anticipation and consumption of food, but who show weaker activation in the striatum during food intake, may be at risk for overeating, particularly those at genetic risk for lowered dopamine receptor signaling. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available