4.5 Article

Explicit and implicit approach vs. avoidance tendencies towards high vs. low calorie food cues in patients with anorexia nervosa and healthy controls

期刊

APPETITE
卷 107, 期 -, 页码 171-179

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.08.001

关键词

Approach avoidance task (AAT); Anorexia nervosa; Explicit; Implicit; Psychotherapy; Training

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [677804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with anorexia nervosa (AN) have a strong ability to limit food intake. Thus, dysfunctional approach vs. avoidance behaviors towards food are evident in AN. We applied an approach-avoidance task (AAT), in which n = 41 AN patients and n = 42 controls either approached (pull) or avoided (push) high (HC) vs. low calorie (LC) food pictures based solely on the presented picture format (landscape vs. portrait). We tested the hypothesis that -in opposition to controls displaying an approach bias towards HC food cues- AN patients would show an avoidance bias (measured as different response times) towards HC food. Explicit ratings of food cues were also performed. We found a significant interaction group x direction (p = 0.03). rm-ANOVAs performed for each of the two groups separately showed a main effect for direction of motion in controls (p = 0.02), but not in AN patients (p = 0.40). The two groups did not differ in their reaction times (RTs) with regard to push (p = 0.27). However, RTs with regard to pull were significantly different between the groups (p = 0.04). Controls show a clear approach bias, expressed by significantly faster RTs for pull compared to push, independent of calorie content of the food stimuli. This approach bias is absent in the group of AN patients. This is indicative of a global loss of incentive value of food in AN. Implicit trainings as add-on to psychotherapy in AN patients are asked for. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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