Disentangling inhibition toward food and non-food stimuli across two hunger levels: An fNIRS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While individuals tend to display poorer inhibitory control toward food-related than neutral stimuli, it is unclear whether this challenge is specific to food or extends to other pleasant stimuli. Uncertainty also remains regarding the general impact of hunger on inhibition. To address these questions, we used a within-subjects design whereby 44 healthy adults completed two go/no-go tasks including no-go images of highly palatable foods and no-go images of animals matched for valence and physical properties. Both tasks were completed one week apart in either a fed or a fasted state. Prefrontal cortex activity was measured using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Poorer behavioral inhibition was observed when participants needed to withhold their response to images of food compared to animals, regardless of hunger state. In addition, more commission errors were made in the fasted compared to the fed condition, regardless of the type of image to avoid responding to. Responses to go trials were slower when these trials were interspersed with food compared to animal no-go trials. However, hunger did not influence go response time. Greater activation was observed in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex during blocks of trials with (vs. without) no-go images, but brain activity did not differ according to the type of no-go image. The effect of hunger on prefrontal brain activity was also not significant. Exploratory correlations showed that food-related inhibition deficits were positively related to self-reported impulsivity, but unrelated to body mass index. This study suggests that even among healthy adults, food-related inhibitory control may have a unique behavioral signature beyond general inhibition toward pleasant stimuli. Hunger also exerts an independent influence on general inhibitory capabilities, highlighting the importance of carefully controlling hunger levels in inhibition studies.
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) | 0.000 | 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".