Boris Cheval1,2, Rémi Radel3, Jason L Neva4, Lara A Boyd4, Stephan P Swinnen5,6, David Sander7,8, Matthieu P Boisgontier9,10. 1. Swiss NCCR "LIVES, Overcoming Vulnerability: Life Course Perspectives", University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Department of General Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Laboratoire Motricité Humaine Expertise Sport Santé (LAMHESS), Université Côte d'Azur, Nice, France. 4. Brain Behavior Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 5. Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Leuven Research Institute for Neuroscience and Disease (LIND), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7. Swiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. Laboratory for the Study of Emotion Elicitation and Expression, Department of Psychology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 9. Brain Behavior Laboratory, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. matthieu.boisgontier@ubc.ca. 10. Movement Control and Neuroplasticity Research Group, Department of Movement Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. matthieu.boisgontier@ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a time of physical inactivity pandemic, attempts to better understand the factors underlying the regulation of exercise behavior are important. The dominant neurobiological approach to exercise behavior considers physical activity to be a reward; however, negative affective responses during exercise challenge this idea. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review studies testing the automatic reactions triggered by stimuli associated with different types of exercise behavior (e.g. physical activity, sedentary behaviors) and energetic cost variations (e.g. decreased energetic cost, irrespective of the level of physical activity). We also examined evidence supporting the hypothesis that behaviors minimizing energetic cost (BMEC) are rewarding. METHODS: Two authors systematically searched, screened, extracted, and analyzed data from articles in the MEDLINE database. RESULTS: We included 26 studies. Three outcomes of automatic processes were tested: affective reactions, attentional capture, and approach tendencies. Behavioral results show that physical activity can become attention-grabbing, automatically trigger positive affect, and elicit approach behaviors. These automatic reactions explain and predict exercise behaviors; however, the use of a wide variety of measures prevents drawing solid conclusions about the specific effects of automatic processes. Brain imaging results are scarce but show that stimuli associated with physical activity and, to a lesser extent, sedentary behaviors activate regions involved in reward processes. Studies investigating the rewarding value of behaviors driving energetic cost variations such as BMEC are lacking. CONCLUSION: Reward is an important factor in exercise behavior. The literature based on the investigation of automatic behaviors seems in line with the suggestion that physical activity is rewarding, at least for physically active individuals. Results suggest that sedentary behaviors could also be rewarding, although this evidence remains weak due to a lack of investigations. Finally, from an evolutionary perspective, BMEC are likely to be rewarding; however, no study has investigated this hypothesis. In sum, additional studies are required to establish a strong and complete framework of the reward processes underlying automatic exercise behavior.
BACKGROUND: In a time of physical inactivity pandemic, attempts to better understand the factors underlying the regulation of exercise behavior are important. The dominant neurobiological approach to exercise behavior considers physical activity to be a reward; however, negative affective responses during exercise challenge this idea. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to systematically review studies testing the automatic reactions triggered by stimuli associated with different types of exercise behavior (e.g. physical activity, sedentary behaviors) and energetic cost variations (e.g. decreased energetic cost, irrespective of the level of physical activity). We also examined evidence supporting the hypothesis that behaviors minimizing energetic cost (BMEC) are rewarding. METHODS: Two authors systematically searched, screened, extracted, and analyzed data from articles in the MEDLINE database. RESULTS: We included 26 studies. Three outcomes of automatic processes were tested: affective reactions, attentional capture, and approach tendencies. Behavioral results show that physical activity can become attention-grabbing, automatically trigger positive affect, and elicit approach behaviors. These automatic reactions explain and predict exercise behaviors; however, the use of a wide variety of measures prevents drawing solid conclusions about the specific effects of automatic processes. Brain imaging results are scarce but show that stimuli associated with physical activity and, to a lesser extent, sedentary behaviors activate regions involved in reward processes. Studies investigating the rewarding value of behaviors driving energetic cost variations such as BMEC are lacking. CONCLUSION: Reward is an important factor in exercise behavior. The literature based on the investigation of automatic behaviors seems in line with the suggestion that physical activity is rewarding, at least for physically active individuals. Results suggest that sedentary behaviors could also be rewarding, although this evidence remains weak due to a lack of investigations. Finally, from an evolutionary perspective, BMEC are likely to be rewarding; however, no study has investigated this hypothesis. In sum, additional studies are required to establish a strong and complete framework of the reward processes underlying automatic exercise behavior.
Authors: Theodore Garland; Heidi Schutz; Mark A Chappell; Brooke K Keeney; Thomas H Meek; Lynn E Copes; Wendy Acosta; Clemens Drenowatz; Robert C Maciel; Gertjan van Dijk; Catherine M Kotz; Joey C Eisenmann Journal: J Exp Biol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 3.312
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ana M Abrantes; Samantha G Farris; Richard A Brown; Benjamin D Greenberg; David R Strong; Nicole C McLaughlin; Deborah Riebe Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Boris Cheval; Matthieu P Boisgontier; Stefan Sieber; Andreas Ihle; Dan Orsholits; Cyril Forestier; David Sander; Aïna Chalabaev Journal: Eur J Ageing Date: 2021-10-01
Authors: Boris Cheval; Silvio Maltagliati; Stefan Sieber; David Beran; Aïna Chalabaev; David Sander; Stéphane Cullati; Matthieu P Boisgontier Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-08-23
Authors: Silvio Maltagliati; Amanda Rebar; Layan Fessler; Cyril Forestier; Philippe Sarrazin; Aïna Chalabaev; David Sander; Hasmini Sivaramakrishnan; Dan Orsholits; Matthieu P Boisgontier; Nikos Ntoumanis; Benjamin Gardner; Boris Cheval Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2021-04-06
Authors: Timothy P Morris; Aaron Kucyi; Sheeba Arnold Anteraper; Maiya Rachel Geddes; Alfonso Nieto-Castañon; Agnieszka Burzynska; Neha P Gothe; Jason Fanning; Elizabeth A Salerno; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Charles H Hillman; Edward McAuley; Arthur F Kramer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 4.379