Cue-potentiated feeding in rodents: Implications for weight regulation in obesogenic environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cue-potentiated feeding (CPF) describes instances where food intake is increased by exposure to conditioned cues associated with food, often in the absence of hunger. CPF effects have been reported in a range of experimental protocols developed by researchers working across diverse fields spanning behavioural neuroscience, social psychology and ecology. Here we review the evolution of research on cue-potentiated feeding in animal models to identify important behavioural parameters and key neural circuits and pharmacological systems underlying the effect. Overall, evidence indicates that social, discrete and contextual stimuli can be used to elicit CPF effects across multiple species, though effects are often subtle and sensitive to procedural variables. While regular exposure to food cues is thought to be a key risk factor for overeating in so-called 'obesogenic' environments, further work is needed to identify whether CPF promotes positive energy balance and weight gain over the longer term. We suggest several methodological and conceptual areas for inquiry to elucidate the contribution of CPF to the regulation of food choice and energy intake.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".