Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Review
  • Open Access

What can food-image tasks teach us about anorexia nervosa? A systematic review

Journal of Eating Disorders20186:31

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-018-0217-z

  • Received: 15 December 2017
  • Accepted: 11 September 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

A salient feature of anorexia nervosa (AN) is the persistent and severe restriction of food, such that dietary intake is inadequate to maintain a healthy body weight. Experimental tasks and paradigms have used illness-relevant stimuli, namely food images, to study the eating-specific neurocognitive mechanisms that promote food avoidance. This systematic review, completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, identified and critically evaluated paradigms involving images of food that have been used to study AN. There were 50 eligible studies, published before March 10th 2018, identified from Medline and PsychINFO searches, and reference screening. Studies using food image-based paradigms were categorised into three methodologic approaches: neuropsychology, neurophysiology, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Paradigms were reviewed with a focus on how well they address phenomena central to AN. Across tasks, differences between individuals with AN and healthy peers have been identified, with the most consistent findings in the area of reward processing. Measuring task performance alongside actual eating behaviour, and using experimental manipulations to probe causality, may advance understanding of the mechanisms of illness in AN.

Keywords

  • Anorexia nervosa
  • Eating behaviour
  • Food stimuli
  • Eating disorders
  • Cognitive neuroscience
  • fMRI

Plain English Summary

A core feature of anorexia nervosa is the persistent limiting of calorie intake, or avoidance of eating, which results in a severely low body weight. Given the relevance of eating behaviour to anorexia nervosa, studies have often used tasks involving pictures of food to try and understand the factors that contribute to the illness. In this article, we review studies involving the presentation of food images, to highlight the approaches that have been most successful in furthering knowledge about AN. Studies to date have identified some differences among individuals with AN, but have had limited success in identifying underlying mechanisms of illness. We consider modifications to existing experimental designs that may address these limitations, in particular discussing methods that have been used to study eating behaviour in non-eating disorder populations. We conclude that when using food image tasks to develop a better understanding of anorexia nervosa, it is important to link actual eating behaviour to task outcomes, and to develop research based on more specific hypotheses.

Background

A core feature of anorexia nervosa (AN) is disturbed eating behaviour [1]. Individuals with AN limit overall caloric intake and specifically calories derived from fat. This pattern of eating persists following weight recovery, and is associated with relapse in the longer term [2, 3]. AN is a complex illness, and there are generalized neurocognitive deficits (e.g., set shifting, central coherence) [4, 5]. Yet, maladaptive eating behavior is central to the definition of AN, leading to models and proposed neurobiological mechanisms of illness centered around aberrant brain responses to food [6]. Measures of neuropsychological processes, such as the Stroop task [7], have been adapted to include illness-specific words, which is thought to increase the attentional deficits among patients [8]. To understand maladaptive eating behaviour, experimental tasks have utilized images of food.

The primary purpose of this review is to identify and critically evaluate the food image tasks and paradigms that have been used in the study of AN. This systematic literature review identified neuropsychological, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies. Across these approaches, task domains included attention, reward, perception, and decision-making. While study findings are discussed, we primarily provide a qualitative review of the tasks themselves, and discuss how well these paradigms address phenomena central to AN.

Methods

Search strategy and eligibility criteria

PsychInfo and Medline were searched, using the search strategy shown in Fig. 1. Following deduplication, titles and abstracts were screened to determine whether the article should be included in the full-text screening stage. References in eligible studies were manually screened to identify studies not captured by database searches. Table 1 details inclusion criteria.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Systematic Review Search Strategy

Table 1

Systematic Review Inclusion Criteria

Sample population

Study included a defined group of individuals with AN or atypical AN (acutely ill or weight-restored). AN group was analysed separately (i.e., studies with only mixed ED analyses were not included)

Study design

Administration of a paradigm involving the presentation of real food images (i.e., not cartoons)

Study type

Primary investigations only, secondary data analyses were not included

Outcome measure

Any

Date of study

Up to and including 10th March 2018

Publication type

Peer-reviewed full-text journal articles

Language

English

Data Extraction, Synthesis, and Quality Assessment

Participant details (age, AN subtype, BMI), task information (nature of task, observed variables) and study information (sample size, use of non-food control images, standardisation of pre-task intake, findings) were extracted. Studies were categorized by type (neuropsychology, neurophysiology, neuroimaging). The neuropsychology and neurophysiology tasks were further categorised by the following neurocognitive domains: attention, reward, perception, and decision-making. The qualitative review identified strengths and limitations of the tasks.

We used the Ferro and Speechley version [9] of the Downs and Black Quality Index [10] to provide a systematic assessment of study quality. A number of items were not applicable to the current review given the neurobiological nature of included studies. Consistent with an existing review [11], we removed the following items: response rate; estimates of the random variability; staff / places / facilities where patients studied representative; outcome measures valid and reliable. We also removed the confounding item given potential confounders varied substantially across studies. The final index consisted of 10 items; 10 was the maximum score (quality index item-level results available upon request).

Results

We identified 50 studies meeting eligibility criteria (Figure 2, PRISMA flow diagram). These studies are presented in Table 2.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

PRISMA Flow Diagram

Table 2

Food-image tasks in the study of anorexia nervosa

Domain

Subdomain

Study

Paradigm & Outcome Variable(s)

Participants (AN subtype)

Mean age (SD)

Mean BMI (SD)

Non-food images presented

Meal-Task Interval Standardised

Summary of Findings

Quality Index Score

Neuropsychology: Attention

Distraction

Dickson et al., 2008 [19]

Working memory task.

Effects of image presentation on reaction time and accuracy.

24 AN (R)

30.6 (9.0)

16.0 (1.0)

Yes

No

No differences AN vs HC

6

24 HC

33.1 (8.0)

21.9 (2.0)

Brooks et al., 2012 [20]

Working memory and inhibitory control task. Effects of image presentation on reaction time and accuracy.

13 AN (R)

25 (11.0)

15 (1.54)

Yes

Yes

Distraction during working memory task: AN > HC

Distraction during inhibitory control task: AN < HC

7

20 HC

22 (5.0)

22.38 (2.66)

Neimeijer et al., 2017 [18]

Visual target detection task. Effects of image presentation on accuracy.

66 AN (57.5% R, 42.5% EDNOS AN-R)

15.25 (1.86)

15.45 (1.79)

Yes

No

Distraction AN > HC

6

55 HC

16.14 (1.9)

20.45 (2.10)

Recognition

Nikendei et al., 2008 [62]

Participants view images. Recognition and recall.

16 AN (81.25% R, 18.75% BP)

22.8 (U)

14.8 (2.3)

Yes

No

No differences AN vs HC

9

16 HC, fasted

23.6 (U)

U

16 HC, sated

23.1 (U)

U

Visual probe detection

Veenstra & de Jong 2012 [24]

Exogenous cueing task: participants detect targets that appear in one of two on-screen locations; distractor image (food or neutral stimuli) precedes target onset, appearing in either the same (valid trials) or opposite (invalid trials) location as the target. Response time.

88 AN (61.3% R, 28.7% EDNOS AN-R)

15.02 (1.37)

15.69 (1.90)

Yes

No

No differences AN vs HC

6

76 HC

15.12 (1.75)

20.42 (2.37)

Cardi et al., 2012 [28]

Dot-probe task: Participants instructed to detect targets appearing in one of two on-screen locations, either replacing a food or neutral image that are presented concurrently.

Response time.

18 AN (33% R, 11% BP, 55% EDNOS-AN)

31.5 (11.4)

17 (2.6)

Yes

No

No effect of intervention on attentional bias towards food

5

19 HC

28.6 (8.0)

23.9 (2.8)

Cardi et al., 2013 [27]

38 AN (21% EDNOS)

29.9 (7.92)

16.2 (2.35)

Yes

No

Attentional bias towards food inpatients: pre-meal < post-meal Attentional bias towards food outpatients: pre-meal > post-meal

6

Kim et al., 2014 [23]

31 AN

23.1 (9.35)

15.15 (2.51)

Yes

Yes

No differences AN vs HC

7

33 HC

22.18 (2.14)

20.91 (2.22)

Cardi et al., 2015 [29]

19 AN

31.0 (10.0)

16.7 (2.7)

Yes

Yes

No differences AN vs HC

7

23 BN

24.4 (5.7)

23.4 (6.9)

36 HC

25.9 (5.0)

21.5 (2.0)

Leppenan et al., 2017 [26]

30 AN

26.2 (6.82)

16.3 (2.04)

Yes

Yes

Attentional bias away from food: AN > HC

8

29 HC

26.83 (8.54)

23.25 (3.65)

Eye-tracking

Giel et al., 2011 [32]

Eye movements recorded while participants view pairs consisting of a food and neutral image.

Number and duration of fixations on images.

19 AN (73.6% R, 26.4% BP)

24.4 (4.1)

15.8 (1.8)

Yes

Yes

Attentional bias towards food: AN < HC

7

20 HC, sated

24.2 (2.9)

21.3 (1.7)

18 HC, fasted

24.4 (2.6)

21.6 (1.5)

Neuropsychology: Reward

Explicit rating

Bossert et al., 1991 [53]

Participants view images.

Palatability ratings.

9 AN (R)

21.9 (2.9)

66.1(8.5) IBW

No

No

Palatability high calorie food: AN < HC

Palatability low calorie food: AN > HC

8

20 BN

21.7 (2.9)

101.9 (12.9) IBW

9 HC

22.3 (1.2)

100.8 (4.8) IBW

Jiang et al., 2010 [46]

Participants view images.

Liking and wanting ratings.

17 AN (R)

26.47 (7.12)

15.04 (1.93)

Yes

Yes

Liking: AN < HC

Wanting: AN < HC

6

29 HC

24.52 (5.58)

20.38 (1.87)

Krizbai et al., 2016 [52]

Participants view images.

Valence, dominance, arousal ratings.

14 AN (R)

15.07 (1.38)

16.92 (1.73)

No

No

Positive valence: AN < HC

5

14 HC

15.14 (1.29)

20.51 (2.50)

Implicit rating

Cowdrey et al., 2013 [41]

Binary forced choice procedure: across multiple trials participants choose between two foods, each of which may be high or low calorie and sweet or savoury.

Relative response time to select high and low-calorie foods (implicit wanting).

20 AN (80% R, 20% BP)

26.4 (10.56)

16.33 (1.1)

No

No

Explicit wanting high calorie food: AN < HC; AN-WR < HC

Implicit wanting high calorie food: AN < HC; AN < AN-rec; AN-WR < HC

Implicit wanting low calorie food: AN > HC; AN > AN-rec; AN-WR > HC

4

22 AN-WR (82% R, 18% BP)

25.1 (6.03)

21.05 (1.89)

22 AN-rec (82% R, 18% BP)

23.73 (5.76)

21.03 (1.53)

41 HC

24.29 (6.46)

21.7 (1.88)

Approach-Avoidance

Spring & Bulik, 2014 [51]

Affect misattribution procedure: participants briefly view food images, which are replaced by Chinese characters. Pleasantness ratings of Chinese characters (implicit liking).

9 AN

21.4 (5.79)

U

Yes

No

Implicit liking: AN < HC

6

14 AN-rec

29 HC

Veenstra & de Jong, 2011 [54]

Manikin Task: participants move manikin towards or away from images presented on-screen depending on orientation of image (horizontal or vertical).

Errors/reaction times on approach versus avoidance trials (approach bias).

89 AN (60.7% R, 39.3% EDNOS AN-R)

14.84 (1.70)

15.71 (1.87)

Yes

No

Approach bias: AN < HC

6

76 HC

14.86 (1.70)

20.42 (2.37)

Neimeijer et al., 2015 [56]

98 AN (64.5% AN, 45.5% EDNOS-AN)

14.97 (1.63)

U

Yes

No

Approach bias high calorie food: pre-treatment < post-treatment

8

Paslaskis et al., 2016 [55]

Approach-avoidance task: participants push or pull computer mouse depending on orientation of on-screen image (horizontal or vertical).

Reaction time on approach versus avoidance trials (approach bias).

41 AN (80.5% R, 19.5% BP)

26.85 (6.71)

15.29 (1.6)

No

Yes

Approach bias: AN < HC

6

42 HC

24.79 (2.71)

21.37 (1.57)

 

Neuropsychology: Perceptual tasks

Size perception

Yellowlees et al., 1988 [57]

Participants view real food item and adjust screen image to match perceived size.

Estimated versus actual size of items.

20 AN

22.4 (8.0)

U

Yes

No

Size over-estimation: AN > HC

5

20 HC

22.0 (6.6)

Milos et al., 2013 [58]

Participants view meals of different portion sizes.

Estimates of portion size.

24 AN

22.38 (4.10)

15.8 (2.01)

No

Yes

Portion size estimate: AN > HC

7

27 HC

21.41 (2.75)

21.47 (2.71)

Kissileff et al., 2016 [99]

Participants view meals of different portion sizes.

Tolerability and expected anxiety ratings.

24 AN (87.5% R, 22.5% BP)

15.46 (1.57)

17.11 (1.35)

No

No

Portion size tolerability: AN < HC Anticipated anxiety: AN > HC

7

10 HC

14.6 (2.63)

20.6 (1.35)

Weight-gain estimate

Milos et al., 2017 [100]

Participants view meals of different portion sizes. Estimates of weight-gain as a consequence of eating portions presented.

24 AN

22.38 (4.10)

15.8 (2.01)

No

Yes

Estimation of weight-gain: AN > HC

7

27 HC

21.41 (2.75)

21.47 (2.71)

Neuropsychology: Decision making

Food-choice

Steinglass et al., 2015 [60]

Participants select between food items varying in fat content in a binary forced choice task.

Proportion of high fat food items selected.

22 AN (54.5% R, 45.5% BP)

29.4 (11.2)

17.5 (1.9)

No

No

Preference for high-fat food items: AN < HC

6

22 HC

26.3 (5.8)

21.0 (1.7)

Neurophysiology: Attention

Electroencephalography

Blechert et al., 2011 [67]

Neural activity recorded with electroencephalography (EEG) while food images viewed.

Amplitude of neural response.

21 AN

23.2 (4.55)

16.6 (1.3)

Yes

No

Neuronal activity: AN > HC

7

22 BN

26.1 (7.5)

22.6 (3.24)

32 HC

26.2 (5.02)

20.7 (2.41)

Nikendei et al., 2012 [69]

16 AN (81.25% R, 18.25% BP)

22.8 (5.2)

14.8 (2.3)

Yes

No

No differences AN vs HC

8

16 HC pre-meal

23.1 (4.8)

22.3 (2.1)

16 HC post-meal

23.6 (5.2)

20.9 (1.7)

Novosel et al., 2014 [68]

11 AN

15.36 (1.62)

15.79 (1.87)

Yes

No

Neuronal activity: AN > HC

6

11 HC

 

20.42 (1.77)

Magnetoencephalography

Godier et al., 2016 [33]

Neural activity recorded with magnetoencephalography (MEG) while participants think about how much they want to eat presented food images.

Amplitude of neural response.

13 AN (R)

31.2 (5.3)

15.7 (1.9)

Yes

Yes

Neuronal activity at 150 ms: AN > HC; AN > AN-rec

Neuronal activity at 320 ms: AN < AN-rec

6

14 AN-rec (R)

27.1 (6.5)

20.9 (1.6)

15 HC

23.7 (5.4)

21.4 (1.9)

Neurophysiology: Reward

Electromyography

Soussignan et al., 2010 [71]

Participants view food images presented following subliminal presentation of facial expressions.

Activity of facial (zygomatic, corrugator) muscles index hedonic response.

16 AN (R)

26.68 (7.30)

14.97 (1.97)

No

Yes

Corrugator activity: AN > HC Zygomatic activity: AN < HC

7

25 HC

24.6 (6.03)

20.52 (1.90)

Soussignan et al., 2011 [72]

Participants view food images.

Activity of facial (zygomatic, corrugator) muscles index hedonic response.

17 AN (R)

26.5 (7.1)

14.9 (1.9)

Yes

Yes

Corrugator activity: AN > HC

6

27 HC

24.7 (6.1)

20.4 (1.8)

Hildebrandt et al., 2015 [73]

Participants complete food-based associative learning task.

Activity of facial muscles (zygomatic, corrugator, levator labii), index hedonic and disgust responses.

14 AN/EDNOS-AN (R)

15.05 (1.87)

17.52 (2.91)

No

No

Levator labii activity to food cue: AN > HC

Zygomatic activity to cue for absence of food: AN > HC

5

15 HC

17.64 (2.71)

22.49 (2.94)

Friederich et al., 2006 [74]

Acoustic stimulus and food image presented concurrently; activity of oculomotor muscle recorded.

Startle response indexes appetitive/aversive motivation.

13 AN (84.6% R, 25.4% BP)

25.1 (3.7)

16.4 (3.7)

Yes

Yes

No differences AN vs HC

7

15 BN

25.2 (5.1)

23.4 (3.7)

25 HC

25.0 (3.3)

21.8 (2.7)

Racine et al., 2016 [76]

19 AN (36.8% R, 63.2% BP)

25.11 (9.13)

16.72 (1.63)

Yes

No

AN unable to suppress startle response to food and negative non-food stimuli

7

Erdur et al., 2017 [75]

33 AN (60.6% R, 39.4% BP)

28.2 (9.41)

15.8 (1.90)

Yes

Yes

No differences AN vs AN-rec vs HC

7

15 AN-rec (33.3% R, 66.6% BP)

40.8 (6.79)

20.81 (1.93)

18 HC

28.95 (8.25)

21.82 (1.58)

Neuroimaging

Passive viewing

Nagamitsu et al., 2012 [82]

Participants view images of food stimuli while brain activity measured with functional near infrared spectroscopy.

Neural response.

12 AN (R)

14.4 (1.3)

15.5 (2.0)

Yes

No

No differences AN vs HC

5

13 HC

14.3 (1.3)

18.7 (1.3)

Ellison et al., 1998 [78]

Participants view images of food stimuli while brain activity measured with fMRI.

Neural response.

6 AN

U

15

No

No

Brain activation: AN > HC (insula, anterior cingulate gyrus, amygdala)

6

6 HC

U

Santel et al., 2006 [48]

13 AN (R)

16.1 (2.0)

16.0 (1.7)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation pre-meal: AN < HC (lingual gyrus);

Brain activation post-meal: AN < HC (Inferior parietal lobule)

6

10 HC

16.8 (2.6)

20.5 (1.9)

Gizewski et al., 2010 [47]

12 AN (R)

27 (U)

14.1 (1.8)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation pre-meal: AN > HC (midcingulate cortex); AN < HC (ACC)

Brain activation post-meal: AN > HC (L insula); HC > AN (prefrontal cortex and R insula)

6

10 HC

25 (U)

21.4 (1.5)

Joos et al., 2011 [44]

11 AN (R)

25.0 (5.0)

16.2 (1.2)

Yes

No

Brain activation: AN > HC (amygdala); AN < HC (midcingulum)

6

11 HC

26.0 (5.2)

21.1 (1.8)

Rothemund et al., 2011 [79]

12 AN (83.4% R, 16.6% BP)

24 (6.1)

13.6 (1.2)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN > HC (precuneus)

5

12 HC

26 (3.7)

21 (1.6)

Holsen et al., 2012 [45]

12 AN (R)

21.8 (2.7)

18.0 (0.8)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation pre-meal: AN < HC (amygdala, hypothalamus, insula, hippocampus, orbitofrontal cortex); AN-WR < HC (hypothalamus, amygdala, insula) Brain activation post-meal: AN < HC (insula, amygdala); AN > AN-WR (amygdala); AN < AN-WR (insula)

6

10 AN-WR

23.4 (2.3)

22.1 (2.2)

11 HC

21.6 (1.3)

22.4 (1.3)

Kim et al., 2012 [84]

18 AN (33.3% R, 66.6% BP)

25.2 (4.2)

16.0 (3.7)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN > HC (Inferior frontal gyrus, anterior cingulate cortex, superior frontal gyrus and cerebellem); AN > BN (anterior cingulate cortex); AN < BN (middle temporal gyrus)

6

20 BN

22.9 (3.9)

21.6 (2.3)

20 HC

23.3 (1.8)

19.9 (1.9)

Boehm et al., 2017 [83]

35 AN (94.2% R, 5.8% BP)

16.25 (3.46)

14.59 (1.5)

Yes

No

Brain activation: AN > HC (superior occipital gyrus)

7

25 HC

16.31 (3.39)

20.46 (2.06)

Kerr et al., 2017 [80]

20 AN-WR (R)

17 (3)

18 (3)

Yes

No

Brain activation correlates with interoceptive awareness in opposite directions AN vs HC

5

20 HC

19.84 (0.87)

21.3 (1.55)

Directed food tasks

Uher et al., 2003 [85]

Participants shown images of food while neural activity measured with fMRI; participants instructed to think how hungry images make them feel and whether they would like to eat the food.

Neural response.

8 AN (R)

25.6 (2.8)

16.6 (1.2)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN < AN-rec (Apical prefrontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, medial paracentral cortex, cerebellem); AN > AN-rec (occipital-lingual gyrus)

5

9 AN-rec (R)

26.9 (5.3)

20.4 (2.1)

9 HC

26.6 (3.3)

22.2 (3.8)

Uher et al., 2004 [50]

16 AN (56.8% R, 43.2% BP)

26.93 (12.14)

16.04 (1.64)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN > HC (medial orbitofrontal cortex, lingual gyrus, anterior cingulate); AN < HC (parietal cortex, cerebellem); AN > BN (apical prefrontal cortex, lateral prefrontal cortex, occipital lingual gyrus); AN < BN (cerebellem)

6

10 BN

29.80 (8.80)

22.43 (2.37)

19 HC

26.68 (8.34)

22.41 (2.98)

Brooks et al., 2011 [81]

Participants shown images of food while neural activity measured with fMRI; participants instructed to imagine eating the food.

Neural response.

18 AN (61.1% R, 38.9% BP)

26.0 (6.8)

U

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN > BN (parietal lobe, cingulate cortex); AN < BN (superior temporal gyrus, caudate, supplementary motor area); AN > HC (visual cortex); AN < HC (cerebellem)

7

8 BN

25.0 (7.1)

24 HC

26.0 (9.5)

Sanders et al., 2015 [49]

15 AN (60% R, 40% BP)

25.6 (5)

14.5 (1.7)

Yes

Yes

Brain activation: AN < HC (superior frontal gyrus); AN > HC (middle frontal gyrus)

6

15 AN-rec (66.6% R, 33.3% BP)

24.3 (5)

21.1 (1.9)

15 HC

25.8 (5)

21.5 (2.3)

Scaife et al., 2016 [43]

Participants shown images of food while neural activity measured with fMRI; participants instructed to think about how much they want to eat the food at the present moment.

Neural response.

12 AN (R)

29.4 (6)

15.4 (1.9)

No

Yes

Brain activation: AN < HC (postcentral gyrus, precuneus, superior parietal lobule); AN < HC (frontal pole, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, supramarginal gyrus for low calorie food); AN > HC (frontal pole for high calorie food)

6

14 AN-rec (R)

27 (6.5)

20.9 (1.6)

16 HC

24.3 (5.7)

21.2 (2)

Active choice

Foerde et al., 2015 [61]

Participants select between food items varying in fat content in a binary forced choice task; fMRI measures neural activity.

Neural activity during food choice.

21 AN (47.6% R, 52.4% BP)

26.1 (6.5)

21.5 (1.9)

No

Yes

Brain activation: AN > HC (dorsal striatum)

6

21 HC

22.7 (3.1)

15.7 (2.0)

AN individuals with AN, AN-rec individuals recovered from AN, AN-WR weight recovered individuals with AN, BP binge-purge subtype, EDNOS Individuals with eating disorder not otherwise specified, HC healthy controls, IBW ideal body weight, R restricting subtype, U unreported

Neuropsychology

Attention

Attention directs sensory and cognitive processing, which in turn influences behaviour [12]. An attentional bias refers to the differential allocation of attention towards one set of stimuli over another. There are three components of attentional bias: increased capture of attention by a stimulus (orienting); reduced ability to direct attention away from a stimulus once attention has been captured (disengagement); and efforts to avoid allocating attention to a stimulus (attentional avoidance) [13]. Components of attentional bias have been studied in other areas of psychopathology, such as anxiety disorders. Individuals with anxiety disorders demonstrate an enhanced orienting towards “threat-related” stimuli, along with difficulties disengaging from such stimuli [13]. These biases are related to anxiety severity [14, 15]. It has been hypothesised that individuals with AN might show similar attentional biases towards food stimuli, indicating a perceived threat, that might in turn be associated with greater dietary restriction [16]. On the other hand, attention to a food stimulus predicts consumption of that food (i.e., the opposite of dietary restriction [17]) in healthy individuals. As such, an alternative hypothesis is that individuals with AN would show reduced attentional bias towards food, and that this is a mechanism that facilitates dietary restriction [18]. Attention paradigms incorporating pictures of food have been administered to individuals with AN to test these competing hypotheses, to assess whether altered attention to food underlies maladaptive dietary restriction.

In distraction paradigms (Table 2, Distraction) pictures of food are presented while participants engage in an unrelated cognitive task. The difference in task performance when food images are presented as distractor items (as compared to neutral distractors) indicates an attentional bias. Individuals with AN were less accurate than healthy controls (HC) in an attention task when distracted by food-related stimuli, with no group difference in the presence of neutral stimuli [18]. One study reported no differential effect of food versus other distractors on working memory accuracy among individuals with AN or HC [19]. However, another study reported working memory performance was compromised by food stimuli distractors among AN, but not HC [20]. In an inhibitory control task, food-image presentation was associated with decreased accuracy among HC, but not AN [20].

In visual probe detection tasks [21, 22] participants identify the location of visual probes that replace food and non-food images (Table 2, Visual probe detection). Faster responses on food trials indicate greater attention to food stimuli (attentional bias towards food). Three studies found no evidence of differences between AN and HC in attentional bias towards food [2325]. A fourth study found that when fasted, individuals with AN, compared with HC, displayed an attentional bias away from food stimuli [26]. Two studies of the effect of oxytocin [23, 26] and three of mealtime support interventions [2729] explored whether attentional bias towards food mediated intervention effects on intake. Changes in attentional bias tended not to correspond with changes in food intake in AN, although small sample sizes limited detection of intervention effects in these studies.

Eye-tracking devices measure attention by monitoring the frequency and duration of gaze fixations at particular positions on a computer screen (Table 2, Eye-tracking [30, 31]). One study found AN and HC did not differ in initial fixation points when high-calorie food and household items were presented concurrently, but the duration of fixations on food-images was shorter for individuals with AN [32]. When single images of food were presented, eye-gaze measurements did not differ between AN and HC [33].

There do not appear to be robust differences in attention bias to food between AN and HC, though some studies of distraction suggest group differences. Interestingly, attention may be differentially associated with intake in the two populations.

Reward

Food is generally considered a primary reward [34], and therefore is useful for understanding how reward is assessed and processed. One approach to studying reward distinguishes separate components of liking and wanting [35, 36]. ‘Liking’ refers to the hedonic impact, or pleasure; ‘wanting’ refers to the motivation to consume a reward [37]. The rewarding properties of a food influence consumption among HC [38, 39]. This observation has resulted in the hypothesis that individuals with AN, who consume less food, do not experience food as rewarding [40], or that ‘liking’ or ‘wanting’ do not drive food consumption in the expected ways [41, 42]. To examine this, tasks have probed the reward value and processing of food by presenting images of food.

In the most straightforward behavioural paradigms, participants rate how pleasurable they find images of food, and/or how much they want to eat those foods (Table 2, Explicit rating task). Across multiple studies (behavioural and neuroimaging), individuals with AN report liking and wanting food less than HC, especially high-calorie foods [33, 41, 4353]. A variation of this task asks individuals to rate neutral images presented immediately after food stimuli (Table 2, Implicit rating task). Neutral images that follow food images are rated as less pleasant by AN than HC [51].

In forced-choice tasks, speed of response provides a behavioural index of motivation, separate from subjective ratings (Table 2, Binary forced choice task). For example, an individual may report not wanting to eat certain foods, but then respond rapidly to these foods during a task. This rapid response is thought to indicate an implicit ‘wanting’ that differs from the explicit rating. Across two studies, individuals with AN were slower than HC when selecting between two high-calorie foods [41, 43], and explicit wanting scores were also lower. In one study (but not the other) individuals with AN were faster than HC to select low-calorie foods [41]; this indication of greater implicit wanting was not reflected in the explicit response.

In approach-avoidance paradigms, participants are presented with images of food and neutral items, and instructed to either move toward (approach) or away from (avoid) the image, according to image orientation (i.e., portrait vs landscape). Approach-avoidance paradigms are based on the assumption that it is easier to approach than to avoid stimuli with motivational value. Error rates and response latencies on approach trials are subtracted from avoidance trials to calculate bias (positive values reflect an approach bias). Scores in the neutral condition are subtracted from the food condition, to calculate food-specific approach/avoidance bias. One study found that individuals with AN made fewer errors than HC on avoidance food trials, resulting in a reduced approach bias to food stimuli [54]. Another study found smaller differences in response times on food approach versus avoidance trials among individuals with AN, also yielding a reduced approach bias in AN [55]. Adolescents with AN displayed an approach bias toward low-calorie, but not high-calorie, food stimuli before treatment [56]. After treatment, an approach bias was present for both types of food. These results are difficult to interpret in the absence of a HC group; one optimistic interpretation is that ‘wanting’ for high-calorie food increased with treatment.

The collection of findings from reward processing tasks suggest decreased value or reward of high-calorie food among individuals with AN, with mixed findings for low-calorie stimuli.

Perception

Individuals with AN often over-report caloric intake, despite under-consumption of food, raising a question about whether patients have a perceptual deficit. Some tasks test this idea by assessing perception of images of food and portion sizes (Table 2; Perceptual tasks).

In one task, individuals adjust the size of images of food and neutral items presented on screen until these are perceived to match the size of actual items. Individuals with AN over-estimated food sizes relative to HC, while estimates of neutral object size were similar between groups [57]. When presented with portions of food, individuals with AN overestimated the size of smaller (but not larger) portions [58]. Individuals with AN, but not HC, reported meal size to be larger when imagining they would eat the meal (intent to eat condition) compared to considering meal size “in general” (general condition).

These studies identified differences in assessments of portion size between AN and HC, with no overall perceptual deficits.

Decision-Making

The only food-image decision-making task administered in AN measures food-choice, or, how individuals make decisions about what to eat [59, 60]. In this task, participants rate a series of images of food for both healthiness and tastiness. One item that was rated neutral for both healthiness and tastiness is selected to be a “reference item” and participants then choose between the reference item and each of the other foods (Table 2, Decision-making). In studies of AN, the main outcome is the proportion of trials in which the individual chooses a high-fat item over the reference item. Two studies have demonstrated that this task captures the decreased selection of high-fat foods by individuals with AN, and task validity was additionally demonstrated by showing that proportion of high-fat choices correlated with actual caloric intake [60, 61]. This task can be used to examine processes contributing to maladaptive dietary restriction in AN.

Summary

Quality Index scores were most commonly affected by methods of recruitment, where the checklist is very conservative. The checklist requires studies to report enrolment either of the entire population or of consecutive patients, and a description of the source of recruitment for healthy individuals. The studies we included often did not meet these criteria for reporting, but nonetheless generally enrolled reasonable samples of individuals with AN. Some studies that did include large sample sizes also included individuals who did not meet full criteria for AN, which may limit the inferences that can be drawn [18, 24, 56]. Only one study included a power calculation [26]. Often sample sizes were small (e.g. [19, 52, 53, 62]). These factors were considered in the summary of findings.

Neuropsychological studies have captured differences in the cognitive appraisal of food in AN, and these findings have informed theoretical models of AN. Specifically, findings from reward processing tasks support the hypothesis that abnormalities in neural reward systems underlie the development and maintenance of AN [7, 63]. Differences in attention towards food between AN and HC have not been consistent; whether attention relates to eating in AN is worthy of further investigation. Decision-making (food-choice) paradigms capture the characteristic eating behaviour of individuals with AN. These paradigms, if studied in connection with actual food intake, may yield insights into mechanisms of AN.

Neurophysiology

Physiological changes can index attitudes that are outside of conscious awareness [64]. Interest in measuring physiological responses to food in AN stems from clinical observations suggesting that individuals with AN may have difficulty describing symptoms and emotions.

Attention

Event related potentials (ERPs) are fluctuations in the brain’s electrical activity, or electrical potentials, that are measured via scalp electrode electroencephalography (EEG). EEG has high temporal resolution, allowing for separation of ERPs into different components [65]. An ERP recording during stimulus presentation contains distinct components of early orienting and sustained attention [66]. Three studies measured ERPs during presentation of food images (Table 2, Event-related potential). Two studies demonstrated that when food stimuli (but not neutral stimuli) were presented, individuals with AN initially display heightened ERP amplitudes compared to HC [67, 68]. At later stages of stimulus presentation, heightened ERP amplitudes in response to low-calorie foods in AN has been reported [68], although another study found no group difference in response to food versus non-food stimuli [69]. A related technique, magnetoencephalography (MEG), measures the electromagnetic field generated by the electrical activity of neurons, indexing brain activity also with high temporal resolution [70]. The one study using this technique reported heightened early activity in response to food stimuli in individuals with AN relative to HC [33].

Reward

Electromyography (EMG) tasks involve the recording of facial muscle contractions in response to images of food (Table 2, Electromyography). The amplitude of zygomatic (smiling) and corrugator (frowning) muscles are positively and negatively associated with pleasantness evaluations, respectively. When food images were presented following emotional primes (faces displaying happy, fear, disgust and neutral expressions) zygomatic responses to food images were decreased in individuals with AN, relative to HC [71]. A second study that included neutral stimuli found reduced zygomatic activity in AN versus HC for both types of images [72]. There was some indication of greater corrugator activity specifically in response to food stimuli in AN in both studies, but this varied with state (fasted or sated) and emotional priming. These studies also measured skin conductance and heart-rate changes; differences specific to food stimuli were not observed. The only EMG study of the levator labii muscle, associated with disgust, found activity increased among AN versus HC when participants viewed cues associated with chocolate [73]. This study also found increased zygomatic activity among AN in response to cues predicting the absence of chocolate. EMG has probed the startle eye-blink response to food, by measuring contraction of the orbicularis muscle that indexes aversion. Two studies found no startle-eye blink differences between AN and HC in response to food stimuli [74, 75]. Another reported that individuals with AN had difficulties reducing their startle eye-blink responses towards food stimuli, as well as negative emotional stimuli, though there was no comparison group [76].

Summary

Quality Index scores were affected by the failure to fully report method of recruitment or failure to include exact p-values (e.g. [73]). Only one study was limited by the lack of a comparison group [76]; some studies had the added strength of comparing acutely ill patients with recovered individuals in addition to healthy individuals [33, 75]. A selection of studies had the added rigor of either standardizing or controlling for states of feeding/hunger [33, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75].

Neurophysiological approaches are less developed than neuropsychological, and may not have reached their full potential. ERP and MEG evidence suggest greater initial attention to food among individuals with AN, though sustained attention findings are inconsistent. EMG findings suggest a reduction in hedonic response to food. These physiological assessments provide another angle to examine neural mechanisms underlying responses to food.

Neuroimaging (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fMRI)

Neural correlates of illness have been examined using fMRI. One approach elicits psychiatric symptoms by presenting disorder-relevant stimuli, and measures associated neural activity (symptom provocation). Another method administers a task with known neural correlates to probe the functioning of the relevant brain system (cognitive activation probe; [77]). Food-image paradigms have been used to develop and test models of the neuropathology underlying AN.

Passive Viewing of Food

In passive viewing studies participants are asked to observe food stimuli during fMRI scanning (symptom provocation; Table 2, Passive viewing). Three studies reported altered amygdala activity among individuals with AN compared with HC [44, 45, 78], and three studies reported altered insula activation [45, 47, 78], however the direction of differences was not consistent between studies. Two studies reported alterations within visual processing areas in AN when high-calorie food was viewed, although exact loci and direction of difference was inconsistent [48, 79]. One study did not find differences in neural activity between AN and HC, but did report that neural activity during food-image viewing was differentially associated with stomach sensation ratings measured outside of the scanner in AN vs HC [80]. Collectively passive viewing studies have produced a diverse set of findings that are difficult to interpret.

Directed Food Tasks

To constrain the psychological experience when viewing food images (and in turn constrain the interpretation of findings), participants are given an instruction for how to internally process the images (symptom provocation, Table 2, Directed food tasks). When participants were asked to imagine eating presented foods, one study reported increased middle frontal gyrus activation in AN relative to HC [49], and another reported increased dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity in AN [81]. When participants were asked to think about how hungry the presented foods made them, individuals with AN displayed greater ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity compared with HC [50]. When participants were instructed to think about how much they wished to eat each food item, increased frontal pole activity for high calorie foods was reported in AN but not HC [43]. A common finding amongst instructed viewing studies was altered frontal cortex activation in AN versus HC, though specific regions differed.

Active Food Choice

The food choice task (described in Neuropsychology) [60, 61] provides a cognitive activation probe, in that it assesses active decision-making and the neural correlates in HC are known [59]. FMRI data showed that food choice was associated with dorsal striatum activity among individuals with AN, but not HC [61]. The dorsal striatum and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were functionally correlated, and this connectivity was related to intake among individuals with AN. By linking the task with actual eating behaviour, this study provides compelling data that dorsal frontostriatal circuit activity is associated with the maladaptive food choices observed in AN.

Summary

Quality Index scores were again affected by recruitment methods or descriptions (e.g. [79, 80, 82]). The majority of the studies involved very small numbers of participants, by current standards for fMRI investigations. Conclusions may be more robust for investigations with sample sizes greater than 20 per group (e.g. [61, 80, 83]). Some studies have the additional methodological strength of standardizing time since meals [43, 45, 4750, 61, 79, 81, 84, 85], and of including non-food stimulus comparisons [44, 45, 4750, 7985].

Neuroimaging studies involving passive viewing of food have not identified consistent group differences. Adding an instruction for viewing has identified differences in frontal regions, in varying locations. Neural regions have multiple functions; various different processes may be captured during the viewing of food stimuli (even with instructions), making it difficult to draw inferences about mechanisms of illness from these paradigms. The only approach that linked neural activity with eating behaviour identified dorsal frontostriatal circuit engagement in AN. This is a promising finding that, if replicated, can open new avenues for research [86].

Discussion

Tasks using images of food have been administered in 50 different studies of AN, using neuropsychological, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging techniques. This systematic review primarily assessed the utility of the experimental approaches. Nonetheless, some conclusions can be drawn from the data. First, while attention is related to intake among healthy individuals [17], data from four studies suggest that attention and eating behaviour are dissociated among individuals with AN [23, 2527]. While a small collection of neurophysiological evidence suggests greater attentional orienting towards food stimuli in AN as compared to HC, findings from neuropsychological studies of attention are inconsistent. Second, measures of liking, value, and choice from neuropsychological and neurophysiological studies converge to indicate that individuals with AN have a decreased preference for high-fat/calorie foods. Third, while it is one study, the only data that linked maladaptive eating with neuroimaging indicated that this behaviour is associated with dorsal frontostriatal activity [61] .

The paradigms and approaches that have been used to date have some notable strengths, as well as important weaknesses. The strengths of the neuropsychological tasks are that they have probed constructs of interest, and some have well characterized underlying neural mechanisms. For example, wanting and liking tasks have been associated with mesolimbic activity among HC, suggesting they probe reward systems [87, 88]. The strengths of the neurophysiological measures include the objectivity of the assessment, as well as temporal resolution that offers a granular study of cognitive processes (i.e., assessing components of broad cognitive processes) [65, 89]. Neuroimaging methods do not have the same temporal resolution, but do have spatial resolution that enables identification of relevant brain regions [90]. Development of paradigms within these fields may allow the parsing of distinct neurocognitive processes and circuits, for an understanding of their role in AN.

The majority of studies involved small sample sizes and specific populations that limit generalizability. The studies ranged in quality, as assessed by the checklist. While this index is the most appropriate available, it is not specifically designed for cognitive neuroscience studies and so the index score does not address the specificity of the data collected. For example, neuropsychological tasks engage multiple neurocognitive domains, even when one variable is identified as the primary outcome. Techniques like EMG and EEG have limited spatial resolution, making neurologic interpretation difficult [65, 91]. FMRI data also captures multiple processes - particularly when responses are not constrained. It is a limitation of this systematic review that the assessment of each paradigm may be influenced by the quality of the study.

The major limitation across paradigms has been the absence of information about the relationship between task variables and eating behaviour among individuals with AN. One interesting dilemma in this research is how best to utilize cognitive neuroscience when the behaviour of interest differs between groups. That is, for many of these tasks, the association between task variables and eating behaviour has been established in HC, but this relationship is not present in AN. For example, ‘liking’ and ‘wanting’ are associated with actual eating among individuals without an eating disorder [87, 88], and attention is associated with food intake among HC [17]. Yet, the association between attention and intake is not so clear in AN, as shown in the studies reviewed here. On the one hand, it is interesting and potentially important to learn that these processes are dissociated in AN. On the other hand, interpreting the finding requires additional information about the relationship between attention and the maladaptive eating behaviour characteristic of AN.

Approaches used to study eating behaviour in populations of individuals without an eating disorder may offer new ideas that can enhance the utility of existing tasks in AN. By studying the effects of experimental manipulations on food choice, causal influences on eating behaviour have been identified in healthy individuals. For example, the role of attention to particular characteristics of food was assessed by asking participants to focus specifically on one value (tastiness or healthiness) of presented foods when making choices. Receiving the instruction to focus on healthiness increased the influence of healthiness on decisions. FMRI data showed that the change in preference was associated with greater functional connectivity between the dorsolateral and ventromedial prefrontal cortices [92]. This cognitive manipulation may be useful in understanding decision-making processes in AN, again highlighting the utility of food choice paradigms.

In motor approach training, participants learn to press a button in response to particular food images presented on-screen. The comparison of food value ratings made before and after the training demonstrated that the approach training increased the reward value of the associated foods and increased choice of these foods [93]. On the flip side, with motor inhibition training individuals learn to inhibit or withhold automatic approach responses to food stimuli. Among overweight and obese participants, this resulted in decreased liking of high-calorie foods, reduced neural activity in reward-signalling regions in response to high-calorie foods, and reduced caloric intake [9497]. Motor approach or inhibition may be useful in AN, as well, where changing value assessment and choice of foods may be therapeutic [98].

Three ideas emerge from this review that may advance research. One, the link between experimental measurements and the eating behaviour characteristic of AN is critical to establishing mechanisms of illness. Two, introducing experimental manipulations may allow for inferences about causality. Neuroimaging in conjunction with manipulations may further elucidate the neural underpinnings of maladaptive eating. Three, perhaps most importantly, clear hypotheses should guide the selection of tasks and approaches, so that research questions may be fully addressed, and in a reliable and valid manner. Much of the food-image research to date has been descriptive; it is time to begin testing the mechanistic hypotheses that have emerged.

Abbreviations

AN: 

Anorexia nervosa

EEG: 

Electroencephalography

EMG: 

Electromyography

ERP: 

Event-related potential

FMRI: 

Functional magnetic resonance imaging

MEG: 

Magnetoencephalography

HC: 

Healthy controls

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Anne Haase and Jeff Brunstrom for reviewing the article prior to journal submission.

Funding

E.C.L. is supported by an Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC] Studentship award. J.E.S. is supported by the New York State Office of Mental Health.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Authors' contributions

E.C.L.: literature review; interpretation of existing research findings; article drafting. J.E.S.: conception and design of the review; interpretation of existing research findings; critical revision of the article. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

J.E.S. receives royalties from Up To Date.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
(2)
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
(3)
New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA

References

  1. Walsh BT. The importance of eating behavior in eating disorders. Physiol Behav. 2011;104(4):525–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Schebendach JE, Mayer LE, Devlin MJ, Attia E, Contento IR, Wolf RL, Walsh BT. Dietary energy density and diet variety as predictors of outcome in anorexia nervosa. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;87(4):810–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Schebendach J, Mayer LE, Devlin MJ, Attia E, Walsh BT. Dietary energy density and diet variety as risk factors for relapse in anorexia nervosa: a replication. Int J Eat Disord. 2012;45(1):79–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Lang K, Roberts M, Harrison A, Lopez C, Goddard E, Khondoker M, et al. Central Coherence in Eating Disorders: A Synthesis of Studies Using the Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0165467.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Roberts ME, Tchanturia K, Stahl D, Southgate L, Treasure J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of set-shifting ability in eating disorders. 2007;37(8):1075-1084.Google Scholar
  6. Park RJ, Godier LR, Cowdrey FA. Hungry for reward: How can neuroscience inform the development of treatment for Anorexia Nervosa? Behav Res Ther. 2014;62:47–59.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology. 1935;18(6):643.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Aspen V, Darcy AM, Lock J. A review of attention biases in women with eating disorders. Cognit Emot. 2013;27(5):820–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferro MA, Speechley KN. Depressive symptoms among mothers of children with epilepsy: a review of prevalence, associated factors, and impact on children. Epilepsia. 2009;50(11):2344–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Donnelly B, Touyz S, Hay P, Burton A, Russell J, Caterson I. Neuroimaging in bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder: a systematic review. J Eat Disord. 2018;6:3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Driver J. A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. Br J Psychol. 2001;92(Pt 1):53–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Cisler JM, Koster EH. Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(2):203–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Van Bockstaele B, Verschuere B, Tibboel H, De Houwer J, Crombez G, Koster EH. A review of current evidence for the causal impact of attentional bias on fear and anxiety. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(3):682–721.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Price RB, Wallace M, Kuckertz JM, Amir N, Graur S, Cummings L, et al. Pooled patient-level meta-analysis of children and adults completing a computer-based anxiety intervention targeting attentional bias. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;50:37–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowdrey FA, Park RJ, Harmer CJ, McCabe C. Increased neural processing of rewarding and aversive food stimuli in recovered anorexia nervosa. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;70(8):736–43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Werthmann J, Jansen A, Roefs A. Worry or craving? A selective review of evidence for food-related attention biases in obese individuals, eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy samples. Proc Nutr Soc. 2015;74(2):99–114.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Neimeijer RAM, Roefs A, de Jong PJ. Heightened Attentional Capture by Visual Food Stimuli in Anorexia Nervosa. J Abnorm Psychol. 2017;126(6):805–811.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Dickson H, Brooks S, Uher R, Tchanturia K, Treasure J, Campbell IC. The inability to ignore: Distractibility in women with restricting anorexia nervosa. Psychol Med. 2008;38(12):1741–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Brooks SJ, O'Daly OG, Uher R, Schiöth HB, Treasure J, Campbell IC. Subliminal food images compromise superior working memory performance in women with restricting anorexia nervosa. Conscious Cogn. 2012;21(2):751–63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. MacLeod C, Mathews A, Tata P. Attentional bias in emotional disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 1986;95(1):15–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Posner MI, Snyder CR, Davidson BJ. Attention and the detection of signals. J Exp Psychol. 1980;109(2):160–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Kim YR, Kim CH, Cardi V, Eom JS, Seong Y, Treasure J. Intranasal oxytocin attenuates attentional bias for eating and fat shape stimuli in patients with anorexia nervosa. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2014;44:133–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Veenstra EM, de Jong PJ. Attentional bias in restrictive eating disorders. Stronger attentional avoidance of high-fat food compared to healthy controls? Appetite. 2012;58(1):133–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Cardi V, Esposito M, Clarke A, Schifano S, Treasure J. The impact of induced positive mood on symptomatic behaviour in eating disorders. An experimental, AB/BA crossover design testing a multimodal presentation during a test-meal. Appetite. 2015;87:192–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Leppanen J, Cardi V, Ng KW, Paloyelis Y, Stein D, Tchanturia K, Treasure J. The effects of intranasal oxytocin on smoothie intake, cortisol and attentional bias in anorexia nervosa. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;79:167–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Cardi V, Lounes N, Kan C, Treasure J. Meal support using mobile technology in Anorexia Nervosa. Contextual differences between inpatient and outpatient settings. Appetite. 2013;60(1):33–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Cardi V, Kan C, Roncero M, Harrison A, Lounes N, Tchanturia K, et al. Mealtime Support in Anorexia Nervosa: A Within-Subject Comparison Study of a Novel Vodcast Intervention. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. 2012;81(1):54–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Cardi V, Leppanen J, Treasure J. The effects of negative and positive mood induction on eating behaviour: A meta-analysis of laboratory studies in the healthy population and eating and weight disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015;57:299–309.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Duc AH, Bays P, Husain M. Eye movements as a probe of attention. Prog Brain Res. 2008;171:403–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiang MY, Vartanian LR. A review of existing measures of attentional biases in body image and eating disorders research. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2018;70(1):3–17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Giel KE, Friederich HC, Teufel M, Hautzinger M, Enck P, Zipfel S. Attentional processing of food pictures in individuals with anorexia nervosa--an eye-tracking study. Biol Psychiatry. 2011;69(7):661–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Godier LR, Scaife JC, Braeutigam S, Park RJ. Enhanced Early Neuronal Processing of Food Pictures in Anorexia Nervosa: A Magnetoencephalography Study. Psychiatry J. 2016;2016:1795901.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Skinner BF. Science and human behavior: Simon and Schuster; 1953.Google Scholar
  35. Berridge KC. Food reward: Brain substrates of wanting and liking. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1996;20(1):1–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1993;18(3):247–91.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Berridge KC, Robinson TE, Aldridge JW. Dissecting components of reward: 'liking', 'wanting', and learning. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2009;9(1):65–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Rogers PJ, Hardman CA. Food reward. What it is and how to measure it. Appetite. 2015;90:1–15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. De Graaf C, De Jong LS, Lambers AC. Palatability Affects Satiation But Not Satiety. Physiol Behav. 1999;66(4):681–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Davis C, Woodside DB. Sensitivity to the rewarding effects of food and exercise in the eating disorders. Compr Psychiatry. 2002;43(3):189–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Cowdrey FA, Finlayson G, Park RJ. Liking compared with wanting for high- and low-calorie foods in anorexia nervosa: aberrant food reward even after weight restoration. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97(3):463–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Berridge KC. 'Liking' and 'wanting' food rewards: brain substrates and roles in eating disorders. Physiol Behav. 2009;97(5):537–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Scaife JC, Godier LR, Reinecke A, Harmer CJ, Park RJ. Differential activation of the frontal pole to high vs low calorie foods: The neural basis of food preference in Anorexia Nervosa? Psychiatry Res. 2016;258:44–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Joos AA, Saum B, van Elst LT, Perlov E, Glauche V, Hartmann A, et al. Amygdala hyperreactivity in restrictive anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2011;191(3):189–95.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Holsen LM, Lawson EA, Blum J, Ko E, Makris N, Fazeli PK, et al. Food motivation circuitry hypoactivation related to hedonic and nonhedonic aspects of hunger and satiety in women with active anorexia nervosa and weight-restored women with anorexia nervosa. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37(5):322–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Jiang T, Soussignan R, Rigaud D, Schaal B. Pleasure for visual and olfactory stimuli evoking energy-dense foods is decreased in anorexia nervosa. Psychiatry Res. 2010;180(1):42–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Gizewski ER, Rosenberger C, de Greiff A, Moll A, Senf W, Wanke I, et al. Influence of satiety and subjective valence rating on cerebral activation patterns in response to visual stimulation with high-calorie stimuli among restrictive anorectic and control women. Neuropsychobiology. 2010;62(3):182–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Santel S, Baving L, Krauel K, Münte TF, Rotte M. Hunger and satiety in anorexia nervosa: fMRI during cognitive processing of food pictures. Brain Res. 2006;1114(1):138–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Sanders N, Smeets PA, van Elburg AA, Danner UN, van Meer F, Hoek HW, Adan RA. Altered food-cue processing in chronically ill and recovered women with anorexia nervosa. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Uher R, Murphy T, Brammer MJ, Dalgleish T, Phillips ML, Ng VW, et al. Medial prefrontal cortex activity associated with symptom provocation in eating disorders. Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(7):1238–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Spring VL, Bulik CM. Implicit and explicit affect toward food and weight stimuli in anorexia nervosa. Eat Behav. 2014;15(1):91–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Krizbai T, Csenki L, Paszthy B, Szabo P. Emotional and autobiographical memory deficits in Anorexia Nervosa. J Evid Based Psychotherapies. 2016;16(2):191–204.Google Scholar
  53. Bossert S, Laessle RG, Meiller C, Junker M, Ellgring H, Pirke KM. Visual palatability of food in patients with eating disorders and dieting women. Behav Res Ther. 1991;29(4):337–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Veenstra EM, de Jong PJ. Reduced automatic motivational orientation towards food in restricting anorexia nervosa. J Abnorm Psychol. 2011;120(3):708–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Paslakis G, Kühn S, Schaubschläger A, Schieber K, Röder K, Rauh E, Erim Y. Explicit and implicit approach vs. avoidance tendencies towards high vs. low calorie food cues in patients with anorexia nervosa and healthy controls. Appetite. 2016;107:171–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Neimeijer RA, de Jong PJ, Roefs A. Automatic approach/avoidance tendencies towards food and the course of anorexia nervosa. Appetite. 2015;91:28–34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Yellowlees PM, Roe M, Walker MK, Ben-Tovim DI. Abnormal perception of food size in anorexia nervosa. Br Med J Clin Res Ed. 1988;296(6638):1689–90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Milos G, Kuenzli C, Soelch CM, Schumacher S, Moergeli H, Mueller-Pfeiffer C. How much should I eat? Estimation of meal portions in anorexia nervosa. Appetite. 2013;63:42–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Hare TA, Camerer CF, Rangel A. Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science. 2009;324(5927):646–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Steinglass J, Foerde K, Kostro K, Shohamy D, Timothy Walsh B. Restrictive Food Intake As A Choice – A Paradigm for Study. Int J Eat Disord. 2015;48(1):59–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Foerde K, Steinglass JE, Shohamy D, Walsh BT. Neural mechanisms supporting maladaptive food choices in anorexia nervosa. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18(11):1571–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Nikendei C, Weisbrod M, Schild S, Bender S, Walther S, Herzog W, et al. Anorexia nervosa: Selective processing of food-related word and pictorial stimuli in recognition and free recall tests. Int J Eat Disord. 2008;41(5):439–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Kaye WH, Fudge JL, Paulus M. New insights into symptoms and neurocircuit function of anorexia nervosa. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009;10(8):573–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Pool E, Sennwald V, Delplanque S, Brosch T, Sander D. Measuring wanting and liking from animals to humans: A systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;63:124–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Luck SJ. An introduction to the event-related potential technique. Cambridge: MIT press; 2014.Google Scholar
  66. Hillyard SA, Anllo-Vento L. Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1998;95(3):781.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Blechert J, Feige B, Joos A, Zeeck A, Tuschen-Caffier B. Electrocortical processing of food and emotional pictures in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Psychosom Med. 2011;73(5):415–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Novosel A, Lackner N, Unterrainer HF, Dunitz-Scheer M, Scheer PJ, Wallner-Liebmann SJ, Neuper C. Motivational processing of food cues in anorexia nervosa: a pilot study. Eat Weight Disord. 2014;19(2):169–75.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Nikendei C, Friederich HC, Weisbrod M, Walther S, Sharma A, Herzog W, et al. Event-related potentials during recognition of semantic and pictorial food stimuli in patients with anorexia nervosa and healthy controls with varying internal states of hunger. Psychosom Med. 2012;74(2):136–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  70. Baillet S. Magnetoencephalography for brain electrophysiology and imaging. Nat Neurosci. 2017;20(3):327–39.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Soussignan R, Jiang T, Rigaud D, Royet JP, Schaal B. Subliminal fear priming potentiates negative facial reactions to food pictures in women with anorexia nervosa. Psychol Med. 2010;40(3):503–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Soussignan R, Schaal B, Rigaud D, Royet JP, Jiang T. Hedonic reactivity to visual and olfactory cues: rapid facial electromyographic reactions are altered in anorexia nervosa. Biol Psychol. 2011;86(3):265–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Hildebrandt T, Grotzinger A, Reddan M, Greif R, Levy I, Goodman W, Schiller D. Testing the disgust conditioning theory of food-avoidance in adolescents with recent onset anorexia nervosa. Behav Res Ther. 2015;71:131–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Friederich HC, Kumari V, Uher R, Riga M, Schmidt U, Campbell IC, et al. Differential motivational responses to food and pleasurable cues in anorexia and bulimia nervosa: a startle reflex paradigm. Psychol Med. 2006;36(9):1327–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  75. Erdur L, Weber C, Zimmermann-Viehoff F, Rose M, Deter HC. Affective Responses in Different Stages of Anorexia Nervosa: Results from a Startle-reflex Paradigm. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2017;25(2):114–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  76. Racine SE, Forbush KT, Wildes JE, Hagan KE, Pollack LO, May C. Voluntary emotion regulation in anorexia nervosa: A preliminary emotion-modulated startle investigation. J Psychiatr Res. 2016;77:1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Breiter HC, Rauch SL. Functional MRI and the study of OCD: from symptom provocation to cognitive-behavioral probes of cortico-striatal systems and the amygdala. Neuroimage. 1996;4(3 Pt 3):S127–38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  78. Ellison Z, Foong J, Howard R, Bullmore E, Williams S, Treasure J. Functional anatomy of calorie fear in anorexia nervosa. Lancet. 1998;352:1192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  79. Rothemund Y, Buchwald C, Georgiewa P, Bohner G, Bauknecht HC, Ballmaier M, et al. Compulsivity predicts fronto striatal activation in severely anorectic individuals. Neuroscience. 2011;197:242–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Kerr KL, Moseman SE, Avery JA, Bodurka J, Simmons WK. Influence of Visceral Interoceptive Experience on the Brain's Response to Food Images in Anorexia Nervosa. Psychosomatic medicine. 2017;79(7):777–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Brooks SJ, Owen GO, Uher R, Friederich HC, Giampietro V, Brammer M, Williams SC, Schiöth HB, Treasure J, Campbell IC. Differential neural responses to food images in women with bulimia versus anorexia nervosa. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22259.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  82. Nagamitsu S, Yamashita F, Araki Y, Iizuka C, Ozono S, Komatsu H, et al. Characteristic prefrontal blood volume patterns when imaging body type, high-calorie food, and mother-child attachment in childhood anorexia nervosa: A near infrared spectroscopy study. Brain Dev. 2010;32(2):162–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  83. Boehm I, King JA, Bernardoni F, Geisler D, Seidel M, Ritschel F, et al. Subliminal and supraliminal processing of reward-related stimuli in anorexia nervosa. Psychol Med. 2018;48(5):790–800.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Kim KR, Ku J, Lee J-H, Lee H, Jung Y-C. Functional and effective connectivity of anterior insula in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. Neurosci Lett. 2012;521(2):152–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  85. Uher R, Brammer MJ, Murphy T, Campbell IC, Ng VW, Williams SCR, Treasure J. Recovery and Chronicity in Anorexia Nervosa: Brain Activity Associated with Differential Outcomes. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(9):934–42.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  86. Uniacke B, Timothy Walsh B, Foerde K, Steinglass J. The Role of Habits in Anorexia Nervosa: Where We Are and Where to Go From Here? Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2018;20(8):61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  87. Jiang T, Soussignan R, Schaal B, Royet JP. Reward for food odors: an fMRI study of liking and wanting as a function of metabolic state and BMI. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015;10(4):561–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  88. Born JM, Lemmens SG, Martens MJ, Formisano E, Goebel R, Westerterp-Plantenga MS. Differences between liking and wanting signals in the human brain and relations with cognitive dietary restraint and body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(2):392–403.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  89. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. Electromyograms as measures of extent and affectivity of information processing. Am Psychol. 1981;36(5):441–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  90. Turner R, Jones T. Techniques for imaging neuroscience. Br Med Bull. 2003;65(1):3–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  91. Hess U. facial eMG. Methods in social neuroscience. 2009:70–91.Google Scholar
  92. Hare TA, Malmaud J, Rangel A. Focusing attention on the health aspects of foods changes value signals in vmPFC and improves dietary choice. J Neurosci. 2011;31(30):11077–87.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  93. Schonberg T, Bakkour A, Hover AM, Mumford JA, Nagar L, Perez J, Poldrack RA. Changing value through cued approach: an automatic mechanism of behavior change. Nat Neurosci. 2014;17(4):625–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  94. Turton R, Bruidegom K, Cardi V, Hirsch CR, Treasure J. Novel methods to help develop healthier eating habits for eating and weight disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;61:132–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  95. Lawrence NS, O'Sullivan J, Parslow D, Javaid M, Adams RC, Chambers CD, et al. Training response inhibition to food is associated with weight loss and reduced energy intake. Appetite. 2015;95:17–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  96. Stice E, Lawrence NS, Kemps E, Veling H. Training motor responses to food: A novel treatment for obesity targeting implicit processes. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;49:16–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  97. Veling H, Lawrence NS, Chen Z, van Koningsbruggen GM, Holland RW. What Is Trained During Food Go/No-Go Training? A Review Focusing on Mechanisms and a Research Agenda. Curr Addict Rep. 2017;4(1):35–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  98. Bakkour A, Foerde K, Schonberg T, Shadlen M, Walsh BT, Steinglass J, Shohamy D, editors. Cognitive mechanisms of decision making in anorexia nervosa. Society for Biological Psychiatry Annual Meeting; 2018; New York.Google Scholar
  99. Kissileff HR, Brunstrom JM, Tesser R, Bellace D, Berthod S, Thornton JC, Halmi K. Computerized measurement of anticipated anxiety from eating increasing portions of food in adolescents with and without anorexia nervosa: Pilot studies. Appetite. 2016;97:160–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  100. Milos G, Baur V, Schumacher S, Kuenzli C, Schnyder U, Mueller-Pfeiffer C, Martin-Soelch C. How fat will it make me? Estimation of weight gain in anorexia nervosa. Appetite. 2017;114:368–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement