4.7 Article

Body size overestimation in anorexia nervosa: Contributions of cognitive, affective, tactile and visual information

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 297, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113705

关键词

Eating disorders; Affective; Body image disturbance; Body size estimation; Perception; Body dissatisfaction

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [MH096777, MH103436]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared females with AN and matched healthy controls on a perceptual size estimation task, finding that individuals with AN were more likely to overestimate their body size. Body dissatisfaction was found to have a significant impact on this overestimation.
Body image disturbance (BID) in anorexia nervosa (AN) is poorly understood and the individual contribution of perceptual, cognitive, and affective components remains unclear. This study compared females with AN and matched healthy controls (HC) on a perceptual size estimation task. Participants (AN n=19 M[SD] age=16.97 [2.24], HC n=19, age=15.77[2.17]) were blindfolded and estimated the size of neutral objects, safe foods, unsafe foods, and parts of their bodies (hips, waist, knees, ankle) over three blocks using: 1) no sensory information (baseline), 2) tactile information, and 3) added visual information. There were no significant differences between AN and HC on neutral and safe or unsafe food objects. Participants with AN were significantly more likely to overestimate their body size across blocks compared to HC. Both groups made fewer errors on unsafe foods and body parts when using tactile or visual information compared to baseline. Exploratory analyses revealed significant correlations between body size overestimation and drive for thinness and body dissatisfaction in the AN group, with body dissatisfaction being the most robust. Results suggest that both deficits in tactile and visual perception and affective factors play a role in BID for young women with AN.

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