| Literature DB >> 33061909 |
Marek Lescher1, Elisa Wegmann2, Silke M Müller2, Nora M Laskowski1, Ruth Wunder3, Susana Jiménez-Murcia4, Gregor R Szycik5, Martina de Zwaan1, Astrid Müller1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In addition to craving responses to salient food cues, the anticipation of short-term rewarding consumption of palatable food may overrun the anticipation of long-term negative consequences of obesity. The present investigation addressed the potential interplay of food cravings and decision-making abilities in individuals with obesity.Entities:
Keywords: Iowa Gambling task; craving; cue-reactivity; decision-making; food addiction; obesity
Year: 2020 PMID: 33061909 PMCID: PMC7518028 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Figure 1Study procedure for study 1 and study 2. FCQ, Food Craving Questionnaire; BIS-15, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; YFAS, Yale Food Addiction Scale; EDE-Q, Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire; PHQ-9, 9-item depression Patient Health Questionnaire; GAD-7, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale.
Comparison of hunger, food cravings, food pictures ratings, and general cognitive functions for individuals with obesity playing the modified IGT in the congruent vs. the incongruent condition (study 1).
| IGT condition | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total sample | Congruent | Incongruent | ||||
| Hungera | 6.49 (10.31) | 6.69 (10.33) | 6.29 (10.37) | .20 | .842 | .04 |
| Appetitive food pictures | ||||||
| Rating—valence | 3.75 (0.69) | 3.83 (0.56) | 3.67 (0.79) | 1.24 | .216 | .24 |
| Rating—urge to eat | 2.03 (1.02) | 2.10 (1.01) | 1.96 (1.03) | .67 | .502 | .13 |
| Raw vegetables pictures | ||||||
| Rating—valence | 3.10 (0.78) | 3.12 (0.72) | 3.07 (0,84) | .33 | .741 | .06 |
| Rating—urge to eat | 1.57 (0.67) | 1.54 (0.55) | 1.61 (0.78) | .53 | .595 | .10 |
| FCQ-State | ||||||
| Baselineb | 27.37 (12.16) | 28.27 (11.68) | 26.53 (12.64) | .74 | .463 | .14 |
| Post | 29.16 (13.97) | 31.10 (14.11) | 27.33 (13.71) | 1.40 | .164 | .27 |
| MCST | ||||||
| Correct responses | 29.37 (9.96) | 29.33 (9.89) | 29.42 (10.11) | .05 | .962 | .01 |
| Normal errors | 11.23 (10.12) | 10.58 (9.07) | 11.85 (11.97) | .65 | .517 | .13 |
| Perseverative errors | 5.70 (4.70) | 6.46 (4.77) | 4.98 (4.56) | 1.64 | .104 | .32 |
aNumeric Hunger Scale, bdf = 104, for all other comparisons df = 105.
IGT, Iowa Gambling Task; FCQ, Food Cravings Questionnaire; MCST, Modified Card Sorting Test.
Figure 2Task performance of individuals with obesity across five blocks in the congruent vs. incongruent IGT condition (study 1). IGT, Iowa Gambling Task, ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05.
Summary of moderated regression analyses investigating the impact of craving responses, food addiction symptoms, or impulsivity on the relationship between IGT condition and decision-making outcome (dependent variable: overall IGT net score) in individuals with obesity (study 1).
| Predictor/Moderator variables | β | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | 60.94*** | .37 | |||||
| Condition | 48.53 | 6.22 | .61 | 7.81 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 35.98*** | .41 | |||||
| Condition | 47.45 | 6.05 | .59 | 7.84 | <.001 | ||
| Urge to eat | −8.06 | 2.97 | −.20 | −2.71 | .008 | ||
| Step 3 | 27.88*** | .45 | |||||
| Condition | 47.54 | 5.87 | .59 | 8.09 | <.001 | ||
| Urge to eat | −7.88 | 2.89 | −.20 | −2.73 | .008 | ||
| Condition × Urge to eat | −15.65 | 5.78 | −.20 | −2.70 | .008 | ||
| Step 1 | 59.62*** | .36 | |||||
| Condition | 48.47 | 6.28 | .60 | 7.72 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 34.25*** | .40 | |||||
| Condition | 47.38 | 6.15 | .59 | 7.71 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-State baseline | −.62 | .25 | −.19 | −2.45 | .016 | ||
| Step 3 | 26.06*** | .43 | |||||
| Condition | 47.55 | 6.00 | .59 | 7.93 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-State baseline | −.57 | .25 | −.17 | −2.28 | .025 | ||
| Condition × FCQ-State baseline | −1.24 | .50 | −.19 | −2.49 | .014 | ||
| Step 1 | 60.94*** | .37 | |||||
| Condition | 48.53 | 6.22 | .61 | 7.81 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 34.10*** | .40 | |||||
| Condition | 46.67 | 6.16 | .58 | 7.58 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-State post | −.49 | .22 | −.17 | −2.23 | .028 | ||
| Step 3 | 31.10*** | .47 | |||||
| Condition | 46.76 | 5.77 | .58 | 8.10 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-State post | −.52 | .21 | −.18 | −2.49 | .014 | ||
| Condition × FCQ-State post | −1.63 | .41 | −.28 | −3.94 | <.001 | ||
| Step 1 | 60.94*** | .37 | |||||
| Condition | 48.53 | 6.22 | .61 | 7.81 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 34.43*** | .40 | |||||
| Condition | 47.62 | 6.10 | .59 | 7.80 | <.001 | ||
| YFAS 2.0 | −2.25 | .97 | −.18 | −2.32 | .022 | ||
| Step 3 | 25.74*** | .43 | |||||
| Condition | 47.62 | 5.98 | .59 | 7.97 | <.001 | ||
| YFAS 2.0 | −2.37 | .95 | −.19 | −2.49 | .014 | ||
| Condition × YFAS 2.0 | −4.43 | 1.90 | −.17 | −2.33 | .022 | ||
| Step 1 | 60.94*** | .37 | |||||
| Condition | 48.53 | 6.22 | .61 | 7.81 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 31.88*** | .38 | |||||
| Condition | 50.19 | 6.28 | .63 | 7.98 | <.001 | ||
| BIS-15 | −.67 | .45 | −.11 | −1.47 | .145 | ||
| Step 3 | 22.01*** | .39 | |||||
| Condition | 49.95 | 6.26 | .62 | 7.97 | <.001 | ||
| BIS-15 | −.60 | .46 | −.10 | −1.33 | .188 | ||
| Condition × BIS-15 | −1.22 | .91 | −.10 | −1.34 | .185 |
IGT, Iowa Gambling Task; FCQ, Food Cravings Questionnaire State; YFAS 2.0, Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0; BIS-15, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, ***p < .001.
Figure 3Graphical illustrations of simple slopes showing two-way interactions of IGT condition and food craving responses/food addiction symptoms on decision-making in patients with obesity (study 1). IGT, Iowa Gambling Task; YFAS, Yale Food Addiction Scale; FCQ, Food Craving Questionnaire.
Comparison of hunger, food cravings, food pictures ratings, and general cognitive functions for individuals with normal weight/pre-obesity playing the modified IGT in the congruent vs. the incongruent condition (study 2).
| Total sample | IGT condition | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Congruent | Incongruent | |||||
| Hungera | 8.37 (11.01) | 8.04 (10.29) | 8.73 (11.94) | −.23 | .819 | .06 |
| Appetitive food pictures | ||||||
| Rating—valence | 3.44 (0.65) | 3.41 (.70) | 3.48 (.62) | −.40 | .691 | .11 |
| Rating—urge to eat | 1.66 (0.67) | 1.60 (.62) | 1.73 (.72) | −.74 | .459 | .20 |
| Raw vegetables pictures | ||||||
| Rating—valence | 3.34 (0.79) | 3.41 (.89) | 3.27 (.69) | .64 | .523 | .17 |
| Rating—urge to eat | 1.56 (0.67) | 1.64 (.81) | 1.48 (.49) | .85 | .398 | .23 |
| Food Cravings Questionnaire State | ||||||
| Baselineb | 21.20 (8.12) | 22.39 (10.09) | 19.92 (5.80) | 1.09 | .280 | .30 |
| Post | 22.22 (9.15) | 22.89 (9.66) | 21.50 (8.69) | .56 | .581 | .15 |
| MCST | ||||||
| Correct responses | 33.85 (6.73) | 32.57 (8.05) | 35.23 (4.70) | −1.47 | .148 | .40 |
| Normal errors | 6.98 (6.26) | 8.11 (7.06) | 5.77 (5.13) | 1.38 | .173 | .38 |
| Perseverative errors | 4.30 (3.60) | 5.11 (4.10) | 3.42 (2.79) | 1.75 | .086 | .48 |
aNumeric Hunger Scale, bdf = 104, for all comparisons was df = 52.
IGT, Iowa Gambling Task; VAS, Visual Analog Scale; MCST, Modified Card Sorting Test.
Figure 4Task performance of individuals with normal weight/pre-obesity across five blocks in the congruent vs. incongruent IGT condition (study 2). IGT, Iowa Gambling Task, ***p < .001, *p < .05.
Summary of moderated regression analyses investigating the impact of craving responses, food addiction symptoms, or impulsivity on the relationship between IGT condition (congruent = 1, incongruent = 2) and decision-making outcome (dependent variable: overall IGT net score) in individuals with normal weight/pre-obesity (study 2).
| Predictor/Moderator variables | β | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | 23.23*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.35 | 8.99 | .56 | 4.82 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 19.86*** | .44 | |||||
| Condition | 46.25 | 8.23 | .59 | 5.62 | <.001 | ||
| Urge to eat | −21.24 | 6.21 | −.361 | −3.421 | .001 | ||
| Step 3 | 13.02*** | .44 | |||||
| Condition | 46.27 | 8.31 | .59 | 5.57 | <.001 | ||
| Urge to eat | −21.50 | 6.34 | −.37 | −3.39 | .001 | ||
| Condition × Urge to eat | 3.31 | 12.62 | .03 | .26 | .794 | ||
| Step 1 | 23.23*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.35 | 8.99 | .56 | 4.82 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 12.79*** | .33 | |||||
| Condition | 41.47 | 9.02 | .53 | 4.60 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-baseline | −.76 | .55 | −.16 | −1.39 | .170 | ||
| Step 3 | 8.37*** | .33 | |||||
| Condition | 41.58 | 9.15 | .53 | 4.54 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-baseline | −.72 | .64 | −.15 | −1.13 | .265 | ||
| Condition × FCQ-baseline | .16 | 1.30 | .02 | .12 | .903 | ||
| Step 1 | 23.23*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.35 | 8.99 | .56 | 4.82 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 12.89*** | .34 | |||||
| Condition | 42.36 | 8.93 | .54 | 4.74 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-post | −.71 | .49 | −.16 | −1.44 | .156 | ||
| Step 3 | 9.25*** | .36 | |||||
| Condition | 42.52 | 8.88 | .54 | 4.79 | <.001 | ||
| FCQ-post | −.64 | .49 | −.15 | −1.30 | .198 | ||
| Condition × FCQ-post | 1.27 | .99 | .15 | 1.28 | .206 | ||
| Step 1 | 23.23*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.35 | 8.99 | .56 | 4.82 | <.001 | ||
| Step 2 | 11.66*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.36 | 9.05 | .56 | 4.79 | <.001 | ||
| YFAS 2.0 | −2.50 | 4.11 | −.07 | −.61 | .546 | ||
| Step 3 | 7.62*** | .31 | |||||
| Condition | 43.36 | 9.14 | .56 | 4.74 | <.001 | ||
| YFAS 2.0 | −2.52 | 4.17 | −.07 | −.60 | .549 | ||
| Condition × YFAS 2.0 | R2 | .37 | 8.32 | <.01 | .04 | .965 |
IGT, Iowa Gambling Task; FCQ, Food Cravings Questionnaire State; YFAS 2.0, Yale Food Addiction Scale 2.0, ***p < .001.