4.5 Review

Integrative Hedonic and Homeostatic Food Intake Regulation by the Central Nervous System: Insights from Neuroimaging

Journal

BRAIN SCIENCES
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12040431

Keywords

food intake regulation; reward; fMRI; hedonic eating; gut-brain axis; neuroimaging

Categories

Funding

  1. Magnus Trust
  2. Andres Acosta's NIH [K23-DK114460]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Food intake regulation in humans is controlled by the dynamic interaction of homeostatic and hedonic systems. This involves appetitive signals, reward processes, and the interaction between hormones, neurotransmitters, and brain areas.
Food intake regulation in humans is a complex process controlled by the dynamic interaction of homeostatic and hedonic systems. Homeostatic regulation is controlled by appetitive signals from the gut, adipose tissue, and the vagus nerve, while conscious and unconscious reward processes orchestrate hedonic regulation. On the one hand, sight, smell, taste, and texture perception deliver potent food-related feedback to the central nervous system (CNS) and influence brain areas related to food reward. On the other hand, macronutrient composition stimulates the release of appetite signals from the gut, which are translated in the CNS into unconscious reward processes. This multi-level regulation process of food intake shapes and regulates human ingestive behavior. Identifying the interface between hormones, neurotransmitters, and brain areas is critical to advance our understanding of conditions like obesity and develop better therapeutical interventions. Neuroimaging studies allow us to take a glance into the central nervous system (CNS) while these processes take place. This review focuses on the available neuroimaging evidence to describe this interaction between the homeostatic and hedonic components in human food intake regulation.

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