Pediatric research · 2015
Potential effects of reward and loss avoidance in overweight adolescents.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reyes Sussanne, Peirano Patricio, Luna Beatriz, Lozoff Betsy, Algarín Cecilia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reward system and inhibitory control are brain functions that exert an influence on eating behavior regulation. We studied the differences in inhibitory control and sensitivity to reward and loss avoidance between overweight/obese and normal-weight adolescents.
METHODS: We assessed 51 overweight/obese and 52 normal-weight 15-y-old Chilean adolescents. The groups were similar regarding sex and intelligence quotient. Using Antisaccade and Incentive tasks, we evaluated inhibitory control and the effect of incentive trials (neutral, loss avoidance, and reward) on generating correct and incorrect responses (latency and error rate).
RESULTS: Compared to normal-weight group participants, overweight/obese adolescents showed shorter latency for incorrect antisaccade responses (186.0 (95% CI: 176.8-195.2) vs. 201.3 ms (95% CI: 191.2-211.5), P < 0.05) and better performance reflected by lower error rate in incentive trials (43.6 (95% CI: 37.8-49.4) vs. 53.4% (95% CI: 46.8-60.0), P < 0.05). Overweight/obese adolescents were more accurate on loss avoidance (40.9 (95% CI: 33.5-47.7) vs. 49.8% (95% CI: 43.0-55.1), P < 0.05) and reward (41.0 (95% CI: 34.5-47.5) vs. 49.8% (95% CI: 43.0-55.1), P < 0.05) compared to neutral trials.
CONCLUSION: Overweight/obese adolescents showed shorter latency for incorrect responses and greater accuracy in reward and loss avoidance trials. These findings could suggest that an imbalance of inhibition and reward systems influence their eating behavior.
METHODS: We assessed 51 overweight/obese and 52 normal-weight 15-y-old Chilean adolescents. The groups were similar regarding sex and intelligence quotient. Using Antisaccade and Incentive tasks, we evaluated inhibitory control and the effect of incentive trials (neutral, loss avoidance, and reward) on generating correct and incorrect responses (latency and error rate).
RESULTS: Compared to normal-weight group participants, overweight/obese adolescents showed shorter latency for incorrect antisaccade responses (186.0 (95% CI: 176.8-195.2) vs. 201.3 ms (95% CI: 191.2-211.5), P < 0.05) and better performance reflected by lower error rate in incentive trials (43.6 (95% CI: 37.8-49.4) vs. 53.4% (95% CI: 46.8-60.0), P < 0.05). Overweight/obese adolescents were more accurate on loss avoidance (40.9 (95% CI: 33.5-47.7) vs. 49.8% (95% CI: 43.0-55.1), P < 0.05) and reward (41.0 (95% CI: 34.5-47.5) vs. 49.8% (95% CI: 43.0-55.1), P < 0.05) compared to neutral trials.
CONCLUSION: Overweight/obese adolescents showed shorter latency for incorrect responses and greater accuracy in reward and loss avoidance trials. These findings could suggest that an imbalance of inhibition and reward systems influence their eating behavior.