ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019
Exploring preferences for variable delays over fixed delays to high-value food rewards as a model of food-seeking behaviours in humans.
Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring preferences for variable delays over fixed delays to high-value food rewards as a model of food-seeking behaviours in humans.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Feeding behaviour, risk-sensitivity and response control: effects of 5-HTPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging and operant models suggest that animals will tolerate uncertainty or risk to obtain food quickly. In modern food environments, sustained access to quick energy-dense foods can promote weight gain. Here, we used a discrete-choice procedure to examine peoples' decisions about when next to eat high-value, palatable food rewards, probabilistically delivered immediately or following longer delays. In Experiment 1, moderately hungry young females showed consistent preferences for a variable delay option that delivered food rewards immediately or following long delays over a fixed delay option that delivered the same rewards following intermediate delays. These preferences were stronger in females with higher BMIs compared with lower BMIs, suggesting that quick food can enhance the value of uncertain or 'risky' food-seeking strategies in individuals vulnerable to future weight gain. In Experiment 2, prior exposure to a subtle and not easily identifiable food aroma increased selections of the variable delay option following delayed food rewards in a mixed sample of male and female adults, providing preliminary evidence that food cues can sustain uncertain food-seeking strategies. These data highlight a working hypothesis that the rapid delivery and consumption of food rewards, and food cues, can increase risk-tolerance in the food-seeking behaviours of individuals who are vulnerable to weight gain. This article is part of the theme issue 'Risk taking and impulsive behaviour: fundamental discoveries, theoretical perspectives and clinical implications'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.