All the Pringle ladies: Neural and behavioral responses to high‐calorie food rewards in young adult women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reward processing is vital for learning and survival, and can be indexed using the Reward Positivity (RewP), an event-related potential (ERP) component that is larger for rewards than losses. Prior work suggests that heightened motivation to obtain reward, as well as greater reward value, is associated with an enhanced RewP. However, the extent to which internal and external factors modulate neural responses to rewards, and whether such neural responses motivate reward-seeking behavior, remains unclear. The present study investigated whether the degree to which a reward is salient to an individual's current motivational state modulates the RewP, and whether the RewP predicts motivated behaviors, in a sample of 133 women. To elicit the RewP, participants completed a forced-choice food reward guessing task. Data were also collected on food-related behaviors (i.e., type of food chosen, consumption of the food reward) and motivational salience factors (i.e., self-reported hunger, time since last meal, and subjective "liking" of food reward). Results showed that hungrier participants displayed an enhanced RewP compared to less hungry individuals. Further, self-reported snack liking interacted with RewP magnitude to predict behavior, such that when participants reported low levels of snack liking, those with a smaller RewP were more likely to consume their snacks than those with a larger RewP. Our data suggest that food-related motivational state may increase neural sensitivity to food reward in young women, and that neural markers of reward sensitivity might interact with subjective reward liking to predict real-world eating behavior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".