Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPorter, L
dc.contributor.authorGillison, FB
dc.contributor.authorWright, KA
dc.contributor.authorVerbruggen, F
dc.contributor.authorLawrence, NS
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-07T08:04:13Z
dc.date.issued2021-05-13
dc.description.abstractFood-specific inhibition training (FSIT) is a computerised task requiring response inhibition to energy dense foods within a reaction-time game. Previous work indicates that FSIT can increase the number of healthy foods (relative to energy-dense foods) children choose, and decrease calories consumed from sweets and chocolate. Across two studies, we explored the impact of FSIT variations (e.g., different response signals, different delivery modes) on children’s food choices within a time-limited hypothetical food-choice task. In Study 1, we varied the FSIT Go/No-Go signals to be emotive (happy vs. sad faces) or neutral (green vs. red signs). One-hundred-and-fifty-seven children were randomly allocated to emotive-FSIT, neutral-FSIT or a non-food control task. Children participated in groups of 4-15. No significant FSIT effects were observed on food choices (all p values > .160). Healthy-food choices decreased over time regardless of condition (p < .050). The non-significant effects could be explained by lower accuracy on energy-dense No-Go trials than in previous studies, possibly due to distraction in the group-testing environment. In Study 2 we compared computer-based FSIT (using emotive signals) and app-based FSIT (using neutral signals) against a non-food control with a different sample of 206 children, but this time children worked one-on-one with the experimenter. Children’s accuracy on energy-dense No-Go trials was higher in this study. Children in the FSIT-computer group chose significantly more healthy foods at post-training (M = 2.78, SE = 0.16) compared to the control group (M = 2.02, SE = 0.16, p = .001). The FSIT-app group did not differ from either of the other two groups (M = 2.42, SE = 0.16, both comparisons p > .050). Healthy choices decreased over time in the control group (p = .001) but did not change in the two FSIT groups (both p > .300) supporting previous evidence that FSIT may have a beneficial effect on children’s food choices. Ensuring that children perform FSIT with high accuracy (e.g., by using FSIT in quiet environments and avoiding group-testing) may be important for impacts on food choices though. Future research should continue to explore methods of optimising FSIT as a healthy-eating intervention for children.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC)en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Union Horizon 2020en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipGhent Universityen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 12, article 653610en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpsyg.2021.653610
dc.identifier.grantnumberES/J50015X/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumber769595en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberBOF.MET.2021.0002.01en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/126985
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherFrontiers Mediaen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://doi.org/10.24378/exe.3303en_GB
dc.rights© 2021 Porter, Gillison, Wright, Verbruggen and Lawrence. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.en_GB
dc.subjectInhibitory control trainingen_GB
dc.subjectResponse inhibitionen_GB
dc.subjectFood choiceen_GB
dc.subjectChildhood obesityen_GB
dc.subjectBehavior changeen_GB
dc.subjectDigital interventionsen_GB
dc.titleExploring strategies to optimise the impact of food-specific inhibition training on children's food choices (article)en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-09-07T08:04:13Z
dc.identifier.issn1664-1078
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Frontiers Media via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData Availability Statement: The research data and analysis code supporting this publication are openly available in ORE at: https://doi.org/10.24378/exe.3303en_GB
dc.identifier.journalFrontiers in Psychologyen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-04-14
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-05-13
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-05-07T09:42:14Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2021-09-07T08:04:21Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 Porter, Gillison, Wright, Verbruggen and Lawrence. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2021 Porter, Gillison, Wright, Verbruggen and Lawrence. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.