Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2019
Effects of eating with an augmented fork with vibrotactile feedback on eating rate and body weight: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Just-in-Time Adaptive Interventions in Dietary Health Management: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Sensor-Based Methods for Measurement of Eating Behavior.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The sustained effect of texture-based eating rate on food intake in an 11-d randomised controlled trial.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Just-In-Time Adaptive Interventions for Weight Management Among Adults With Excess Body Weight: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Ultra-Processed Foods and Metabolic Dysfunction: A Narrative Review of Dietary Processing, Behavioral Drivers and Chronic Disease Risk.Metabolites · 2025Review
- Eating Speed, Eating Frequency, and Their Relationships with Diet Quality, Adiposity, and Metabolic Syndrome, or Its Components.Nutrients · 2021Review
- Effects of Oro-Sensory Exposure on Satiation and Underlying Neurophysiological Mechanisms-What Do We Know So Far?Nutrients · 2021Review
- Edograms: recording the microstructure of meal intake in humans-a window on appetite mechanisms.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2020Review
- Article
- How Important Is Eating Rate in the Physiological Response to Food Intake, Control of Body Weight, and Glycemia?Nutrients · 2020Review
- Ultra-Processing or Oral Processing? A Role for Energy Density and Eating Rate in Moderating Energy Intake from Processed Foods.Current developments in nutrition · 2020Article
- Validation of a Deep Learning System for the Full Automation of Bite and Meal Duration Analysis of Experimental Meal Videos.Nutrients · 2020Article
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
backgroundEating rate is a basic determinant of appetite regulation: people who eat more slowly feel sated earlier and eat less. A high eating rate contributes to overeating and potentially to weight gain. Previous studies showed that an augmented fork that delivers real-time feedback on eating rate is a potentially effective intervention to decrease eating rate in naturalistic settings. This study assessed the impact of using the augmented fork during a 15-week period on eating rate and body weight.
methodsIn a parallel randomized controlled trial, 141 participants with overweight (age: 49.2 ± 12.3 y; BMI: 31.5 ± 4.48 kg/m2) were randomized to intervention groups (VFC, n = 51 or VFC+, n = 44) or control group (NFC, n = 46). First, we measured bite rate and success ratio on five consecutive days with the augmented fork without feedback (T1). The intervention groups (VFC, VFC+) then used the same fork, but now received vibrotactile feedback when they ate more than one bite per 10 s. Participants in VFC+ had additional access to a web portal with visual feedback. In the control group (NFC), participants ate with the fork without either feedback. The intervention period lasted four weeks, followed by a week of measurements only (T2) and another measurement week after eight weeks (T3). Body weight was assessed at T1, T2, and T3.
resultsParticipants in VFC and VFC+ had a lower bite rate (p < .01) and higher success ratio (p < .0001) than those in NFC at T2. This effect persisted at T3. In both intervention groups participants lost more weight than those in the control group at T2 (p < .02), with no rebound at T3.
conclusionsThe findings of this study indicate that an augmented fork with vibrotactile feedback is a viable tool to reduce eating rate in naturalistic settings. Further investigation may confirm that the augmented fork could support long-term weight loss strategies.
trial registrationThe research reported in this manuscript was registered on 4 November 2015 in the Netherlands Trial Register with number NL5432 ( https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5432 ).
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.