The Effects of Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation to the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex on Executive Function, Food Cravings, and Snack Food Consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Prior research has demonstrated that executive function (EF) strength is positively associated with dietary self-control. As such, the differential operation of the brain centers underlying EFs (i.e., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC]) may explain controlled aspects of dietary self-control. The present study was designed to examine the causal relationship between DLPFC function and two aspects of dietary self-control: visceral cravings and actual consumptive behaviors. METHODS: The research was conducted using a within-participant design. A sample of 21 healthy female young adults aged 19 to 26 years (mean [M; standard deviation] = 21.10 [1.86] years) received both active and sham continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) to the left DLPFC. Before and after each session, subjective food cravings were assessed using the Food Craving Questionnaire-State. After each stimulation session, participants competed three measures of EF (Stroop, Go/No-Go, and Stop-Signal) and a bogus taste test. RESULTS: Participants reported larger increases in snack food cravings after active stimulation (M = 9.98% change, standard error [SE] = 0.45) than after sham stimulation (M = -3.46, SE = 0.39, p = .012) on the reinforcement anticipation dimension of Food Craving Questionnaire-State. Likewise, participants consumed significantly more snack foods after active stimulation (M = 70.62 grams, SE = 5.17) than after sham stimulation (M = 61.33, SE = 3.56, p = .006). Finally, performance on the Stroop task was reduced more after active (M = 71.56 milliseconds, SE = 25.18) than after sham stimulation (M = 20.16, SE = 13.32, p = .033); reduction in Stroop performance mediated the effect of active stimulation on increased appetitive food consumption. CONCLUSION: These results support the contention that EF strength, as modulated by DLPFC activity, is causally associated with effective dietary self-control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".