Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27471447›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2016

Body Image Distortion and Exposure to Extreme Body Types: Contingent Adaptation and Cross Adaptation for Self and Other.

Kevin R Brooks, Jonathan M Mond, Richard J Stevenson, Ian D Stephen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kevin R BrooksDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Human Sciences, Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia.
Jonathan M MondDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; Department of Psychology, Centre for Emotional Health, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard J StevensonDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Human Sciences, Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia.
Ian D StephenDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Human Sciences, Perception in Action Research Centre, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia.
Macquarie University · AUARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body size misperception is common amongst the general public and is a core component of eating disorders and related conditions. While perennial media exposure to the "thin ideal" has been blamed for this misperception, relatively little research has examined visual adaptation as a potential mechanism. We examined the extent to which the bodies of "self" and "other" are processed by common or separate mechanisms in young women. Using a contingent adaptation paradigm, experiment 1 gave participants prolonged exposure to images both of the self and of another female that had been distorted in opposite directions (e.g., expanded other/contracted self), and assessed the aftereffects using test images both of the self and other. The directions of the resulting perceptual biases were contingent on the test stimulus, establishing at least some separation between the mechanisms encoding these body types. Experiment 2 used a cross adaptation paradigm to further investigate the extent to which these mechanisms are independent. Participants were adapted either to expanded or to contracted images of their own body or that of another female. While adaptation effects were largest when adapting and testing with the same body type, confirming the separation of mechanisms reported in experiment 1, substantial misperceptions were also demonstrated for cross adaptation conditions, demonstrating a degree of overlap in the encoding of self and other. In addition, the evidence of misperception of one's own body following exposure to "thin" and to "fat" others demonstrates the viability of visual adaptation as a model of body image disturbance both for those who underestimate and those who overestimate their own size.

Indexed as

adaptationaftereffectsbody imageeating disordersneural representationperceptionpsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID27471447
PMCPMC4946181
OpenAlexW2474029578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.