Contextual cues as modifiers of cTBS effects on indulgent eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Prior studies have found that continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) targeting the left dlPFC results in reliable increases in consumption of calorie-dense food items. However, it is not known to what extent such effects are modified by cues in the immediate eating environment. Tempting environments (i.e., those saturated with appetitive eating cues) may lead to more reliance on cognitive control networks involving the dlPFC, thereby enhancing cTBS on eating. Objective/Hypothesis The objective was to examine the extent to which cTBS effects on eating would be modified by contextual cues. It was hypothesized that cTBS effects on eating would be stronger in the presence of facilitating cues. Methods Using a between-subjects factorial design, 107 adults were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: 1) active cTBS + facilitating cues, 2) sham cTBS + facilitating cues, 3) active cTBS + inhibiting cues, 4) sham cTBS + inhibiting cues. Following stimulation participants completed a flanker paradigm and a taste test during which quantity consumed was assessed surreptitiously. Results Findings revealed a significant interaction between stimulation and cue type (F(1,102)=6.235, p=.014), such that the effects of cTBS were stronger for those in the facilitating cue condition. Conclusions The effects of cTBS on eating are strengthened in the presence of facilitating cues. Methodologically speaking, facilitating cues may be a functional prerequisite for exploring cTBS effects on eating in the laboratory. Substantively, the findings also suggest that facilitating cues in the eating environment may amplify counter-intentional food indulgence in everyday life via cognitive control failure.
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) | 0.004 | 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".