4.7 Review

A systematic review of the relationship between eating, weight and inhibitory control using the stop signal task

期刊

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 35-62

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.010

关键词

Eating disorders; Obesity; Eating; Weight; Inhibitory control; Stop signal task

资金

  1. NIHR Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) at the South London
  2. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  3. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London
  4. BRC
  5. NIHR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Altered inhibitory control (response inhibition, reward-based inhibition, cognitive inhibition, reversal learning) has been implicated in eating disorders (EDs) and obesity. It is unclear, however, how different types of inhibitory control contribute to eating and weight-control behaviours. This review evaluates the relationship between one aspect of inhibitory control (a reactive component of motor response inhibition measured by the stop signal task) and eating/weight in clinical and non-clinical populations. Sixty-two studies from 58 journal articles were included. Restrained eaters had diminished reactive inhibitory control compared to unrestrained eaters, and showed greatest benefit to their eating behaviour from manipulations of inhibitory control. Obese individuals may show less reactive inhibitory control but only in the context of food-specific inhibition or after executive resources are depleted. Of the limited studies in EDs, the majority found no impairment in reactive inhibitory control, although findings are inconsistent. Thus, altered reactive inhibitory control is related to some maladaptive eating behaviours, and hence may provide a therapeutic target for behavioural manipulations and/or neuromodulation. However, other types of inhibitory control may also contribute. Methodological and theoretical considerations are discussed. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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