4.5 Article

Eating with eyes - Comparing eye movements and food choices between overweight and lean individuals in a real-life buffet setting

期刊

APPETITE
卷 125, 期 -, 页码 152-159

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.02.003

关键词

Eye-tracking; Food choice; Overweight; Attentional bias; Eating behaviour

资金

  1. Marsden Fund, New Zealand Royal Society Te Aparangi [2018UOO1720]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have long sought to pinpoint factors underpinning individual differences in eating behaviour. Emerging data from eye-tracking studies have suggested that attentional biases to food exist among individuals and food types. However, such studies have thus far relied on food images and computerised tasks, limiting real-world implications. The present study tested 32 healthy male participants (16 being overweight) for attentional biases in an ad libitum buffet setting, using wearable eye-trackers. The eye tracking analyses suggested that sugar content moderated visual fixation biases (p < 0.05), whereas BMI exerted significant effects on pupil diameter (p < 0.05). In addition, findings from the study revealed tripartite relationships between eye-tracking, self-reported liking, and ad libitum intake. Although visual fixation in the view condition was correlated with liking for high-calorie food, further analyses showed that this measure was not a strong predictor of food selection. Instead, visual fixation during the selection task could be the key predictor for selection of savoury food. In contrast, neither eye-tracking nor self-reported measures could adequately predict selection of desserts, implicating distinct decision making processes for different types of food. Due to the small sample size, findings from this study should be replicated in future research. Overall, this study highlights the importance of realistic experimental settings in eye-tracking studies for understanding eating behaviour. (C) 2018 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