Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40822138›Full record

ReviewComputational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.)2025

Increasing Response Vigour Under Time Pressure as a Transdiagnostic Marker of Eating Disorders.

Sam Hall-McMaster, Ondrej Zika

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Sam Hall-McMaster *Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1641-979X
Ondrej Zika *Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0483-4443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eating disorders (EDs) are characterised by intense concerns about food and weight. These concerns are linked to changes in decision-making, such as persisting with actions that are no longer rewarding. For example, individuals might engage in long exercise sessions or time-consuming body checking practices, despite limited benefits. This study tested whether people with subclinical ED symptoms show increased persistence due to altered decision-making processes. Specifically, we postulated a shift in internal thresholds for making different decisions in EDs, which change the balance between exploitation and exploration. A subclinical group with heightened concerns about eating (sED; N = 44) and a healthy control group (HC; N = 56) completed a foraging task, in which an option on screen was exploited for reward. With each decision to exploit, reward feedback decreased and participants had to decide when to move on to a new option. Each block was time limited to 7.5 minutes. Behavioural persistence was measured as the number of seconds spent exploiting each option. Decision thresholds were measured when deciding to move on, as the counterfactual reward that would have been received for an exploit action. We predicted that the sED group would show increased persistence and decreased decision thresholds (i.e. lower counterfactual reward when deciding to move on) in comparison to the HC group. We found no evidence for these predictions. Instead, exploratory analyses showed that the sED group exhibited progressively faster response times (RTs) when approaching the time limit for each block. This increase in motor vigour was correlated with the severity of eating disorder symptoms from a range of traditional diagnostic categories. Our results point to changing motor vigour as a potential transdiagnostic marker of ED tendencies.

Indexed as

decision-makingeating disordersforaging

Identifiers

PMID40822138
PMCPMC12352398

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.