ArticleCurrent research in food science2026
Neuroscience meets food choice: Implicit and explicit consumer responses to plant-based vs animal-based foods.
Article in Current research in food science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding consumer acceptance of plant-based (PB) alternatives is essential for fostering sustainable dietary transitions. This study combined electroencephalography (EEG) and self-reported measures to examine implicit and explicit responses to PB alternatives versus animal-based (AB) traditional foods - belonging to meat, fish, and dairy food types-across visual, olfactory, and gustatory experimental phases. Thirty-six participants evaluated matched PB and AB foods while EEG indices of approach-withdrawal (AW) and mental workload (WL) were recorded. Results showed AB products globally received higher ratings for taste, familiarity, and purchase intention, whereas PBs were rated as more sustainable. From a neurophysiological point of view, tasting PB foods induced higher WL, which negatively correlated with liking and purchase intention, suggesting that greater cognitive effort reduced explicit acceptance. Conversely, AW positively correlated with tastiness, and purchase intention for PB alternatives and was also higher for AB products during the visual-olfactory presentation phase, reflecting greater familiarity. Psychographic traits modulated responses: a lifestyle of health and sustainability (LOHAS scores) was associated with more favorable PB ratings, although without corresponding EEG indices, while food neophobia was linked to increased WL and reduced AW across both PB and AB products, indicating lower cognitive engagement despite unchanged self-reports. By combining neuroscience and behavioral measures, this multi-method approach offers novel insights into consumers' perceptions of plant-based foods. Findings emphasize the dual roles of cognitive effort and approach motivation in food evaluations and highlight practical implications for developing and marketing plant-based products aligned with consumer expectations.
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.