4.6 Article

The outcome-representation learning model: impairments in decision-making in adolescents with excess weight

期刊

CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY
卷 42, 期 26, 页码 22404-22414

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03299-1

关键词

Excess weight; Adolescents; Decision making; Cognitive modelling; Reward processing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research suggests that impairments in decision-making may contribute to the development of obesity, especially in adolescents. In this study, overweight adolescents showed riskier decision-making and differences in reward learning, forgetfulness, and deck perseverance compared to normal weight adolescents.
Impairments in decision-making have been suggested as a predisposing factor to obesity development. Individuals with excess weight display riskier decisions than normal weight people. Furthermore, adolescence is a period of life in which risky behavior may increase. We aimed to investigate decision making applying the Outcome-Representation-Learning (ORL) model to the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) in adolescents with excess weight. Twenty-nine excess weight and twentyeight normal weight adolescents, classified according to their age-adjusted body mass index (BMI) percentile, participated in the study. Decision-making was measured using the IGT. A Bayesian computational ORL model was applied to assess reward learning, punishment learning, forgetfulness, win perseverance and deck perseverance. The IGT net score was lower in excess weight than normal weight adolescents (beta = 2.85; p <.027). Reward learning (95% HDI [0.011, 0.232]) was higher, while forgetfulness (95% HDI [- 0.711, -0.181]) and deck perseverance (95% HDI [- 3.349, -0.203]) were lower, in excess weight than normal weight adolescents. Excess weight adolescents seemed better at learning the most rewarding choices and showed a random strategy based on reward and novelty seeking. Consequently, excess weight adolescents made more disadvantageous selections, and performed worse in the IGT.

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

4.6
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