Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34457346›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Effects of go/no-go training on food-related action tendencies, liking and choice.

Loukia Tzavella, Natalia S Lawrence, Katherine S Button, Elizabeth A Hart, Natalie M Holmes, Kimberley Houghton, Nina Badkar, Ellie Macey, Amy-Jayne Braggins, Felicity C Murray and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Loukia TzavellaBrain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1463-9396
Natalia S LawrenceSchool of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1969-6637
Katherine S ButtonDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BS2 7AY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4332-8789
Elizabeth A HartSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK.
Natalie M HolmesSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK.
Kimberley HoughtonSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK.
Nina BadkarSchool of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.
Ellie MaceySchool of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.
Amy-Jayne BragginsDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BS2 7AY, UK.
Felicity C MurraySchool of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK.
Christopher D ChambersBrain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6058-4114
Rachel C AdamsBrain Research Imaging Centre, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 4HQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8053-0671
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inhibitory control training effects on behaviour (e.g. 'healthier' food choices) can be driven by changes in affective evaluations of trained stimuli, and theoretical models indicate that changes in action tendencies may be a complementary mechanism. In this preregistered study, we investigated the effects of food-specific go/no-go training on action tendencies, liking and impulsive choices in healthy participants. In the training task, energy-dense foods were assigned to one of three conditions: 100% inhibition (no-go), 0% inhibition (go) or 50% inhibition (control). Automatic action tendencies and liking were measured pre- and post-training for each condition. We found that training did not lead to changes in approach bias towards trained foods (go and no-go relative to control), but we warrant caution in interpreting this finding as there are important limitations to consider for the employed approach-avoidance task. There was only anecdotal evidence for an effect on food liking, but there was evidence for contingency learning during training, and participants were on average less likely to choose a no-go food compared to a control food after training. We discuss these findings from both a methodological and theoretical standpoint and propose that the mechanisms of action behind training effects be investigated further.

Indexed as

action tendenciesapproach biaschoicefoodgo/no-go trainingliking

Identifiers

PMID34457346
PMCPMC8385366
OpenAlexW3195887072

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.