在嗅觉和视觉食物线索的作用下,行为上将 "喜欢 "和 "想要 "分开。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Appetite Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107717
Androula Savva , Renee Dijkman , Cynthia M. Bulik , Janina Seubert
{"title":"在嗅觉和视觉食物线索的作用下,行为上将 \"喜欢 \"和 \"想要 \"分开。","authors":"Androula Savva ,&nbsp;Renee Dijkman ,&nbsp;Cynthia M. Bulik ,&nbsp;Janina Seubert","doi":"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107717","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In real-world settings, food rewards are processed in parallel across several sensory modalities, but paradigms that compare contributions of different modalities are lacking. While odor perception in particular is frequently implicated in appetite regulation, the mechanisms by which food odors differentially evoke experiences of wanting and liking remain poorly understood. This study addressed this gap by dissociating liking from wanting responses for olfactory stimuli, and establishing commonalities and differences relative to the visual modality. In two separate experiments, participants (n<sub>1</sub> = 37, n<sub>2</sub> = 43) rated content-matched batteries of odors and pictures, respectively, for their ability to elicit pleasure (liking) and desire to eat (wanting). A third experiment (n<sub>3</sub> = 39) utilized a combined olfactory-visual paradigm to test the separation of these dimensions in a multisensory context. Our results show that participants differentiated clearly and reliably between liking and wanting for both odors and pictures, as demonstrated by a high difference score between the two in non-food (high liking, low wanting), but not in food (both high) or disgusting stimuli (both low), and high within-session retest reliability. Higher variability for olfactory relative to visual assessments was observed and likely reflects well-established difficulties with odor object identification. Taken together, our study demonstrates that olfactory stimuli can be used in experimental settings to evoke separable experiences of liking and wanting for food and non-food stimuli. Manipulating these components independently across sensory modalities in experimental studies could generate novel insights into how olfactory and visual cues differentially contribute to anticipatory and consummatory food reward processing, in healthy and disordered eating.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":242,"journal":{"name":"Appetite","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 107717"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behavioral separation of liking and wanting in response to olfactory and visual food cues\",\"authors\":\"Androula Savva ,&nbsp;Renee Dijkman ,&nbsp;Cynthia M. Bulik ,&nbsp;Janina Seubert\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.appet.2024.107717\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In real-world settings, food rewards are processed in parallel across several sensory modalities, but paradigms that compare contributions of different modalities are lacking. While odor perception in particular is frequently implicated in appetite regulation, the mechanisms by which food odors differentially evoke experiences of wanting and liking remain poorly understood. This study addressed this gap by dissociating liking from wanting responses for olfactory stimuli, and establishing commonalities and differences relative to the visual modality. In two separate experiments, participants (n<sub>1</sub> = 37, n<sub>2</sub> = 43) rated content-matched batteries of odors and pictures, respectively, for their ability to elicit pleasure (liking) and desire to eat (wanting). A third experiment (n<sub>3</sub> = 39) utilized a combined olfactory-visual paradigm to test the separation of these dimensions in a multisensory context. Our results show that participants differentiated clearly and reliably between liking and wanting for both odors and pictures, as demonstrated by a high difference score between the two in non-food (high liking, low wanting), but not in food (both high) or disgusting stimuli (both low), and high within-session retest reliability. Higher variability for olfactory relative to visual assessments was observed and likely reflects well-established difficulties with odor object identification. Taken together, our study demonstrates that olfactory stimuli can be used in experimental settings to evoke separable experiences of liking and wanting for food and non-food stimuli. Manipulating these components independently across sensory modalities in experimental studies could generate novel insights into how olfactory and visual cues differentially contribute to anticipatory and consummatory food reward processing, in healthy and disordered eating.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":242,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Appetite\",\"volume\":\"204 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107717\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Appetite\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566632400521X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Appetite","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566632400521X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在现实世界中,食物奖励是通过几种感官模式并行处理的,但缺乏比较不同模式贡献的范例。虽然气味感知经常与食欲调节有关,但人们对食物气味唤起想要和喜欢的不同体验的机制仍然知之甚少。本研究通过将嗅觉刺激的 "喜欢 "和 "想要 "反应区分开来,并确定与视觉模式的共性和差异,填补了这一空白。在两个独立的实验中,参与者(n1=37,n2=43)分别对内容匹配的气味和图片进行评分,看它们是否能引起愉悦感(喜欢)和进食欲望(想要)。第三个实验(n3=39)采用了嗅觉和视觉相结合的范式,以测试在多感官情境下这些维度的分离情况。我们的结果表明,被试对气味和图片的 "喜欢 "和 "想要 "都有明确而可靠的区分,这表现在对非食物刺激("喜欢 "高,"想要 "低),而对食物刺激("喜欢 "和 "想要 "都高)或恶心刺激("恶心 "和 "想要 "都低),两者之间的差异分值都很高,而且被试在测试期间的重测可靠性也很高。与视觉评估相比,嗅觉评估的变异性更高,这很可能反映了气味对象识别方面的公认困难。综上所述,我们的研究表明,嗅觉刺激可以在实验环境中用于唤起对食物和非食物刺激的可分离的喜欢和渴望体验。在实验研究中跨感官模式独立操纵这些成分,可以让我们对健康饮食和饮食失调中嗅觉和视觉线索是如何对预期性和消耗性食物奖赏处理做出不同贡献产生新的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Behavioral separation of liking and wanting in response to olfactory and visual food cues
In real-world settings, food rewards are processed in parallel across several sensory modalities, but paradigms that compare contributions of different modalities are lacking. While odor perception in particular is frequently implicated in appetite regulation, the mechanisms by which food odors differentially evoke experiences of wanting and liking remain poorly understood. This study addressed this gap by dissociating liking from wanting responses for olfactory stimuli, and establishing commonalities and differences relative to the visual modality. In two separate experiments, participants (n1 = 37, n2 = 43) rated content-matched batteries of odors and pictures, respectively, for their ability to elicit pleasure (liking) and desire to eat (wanting). A third experiment (n3 = 39) utilized a combined olfactory-visual paradigm to test the separation of these dimensions in a multisensory context. Our results show that participants differentiated clearly and reliably between liking and wanting for both odors and pictures, as demonstrated by a high difference score between the two in non-food (high liking, low wanting), but not in food (both high) or disgusting stimuli (both low), and high within-session retest reliability. Higher variability for olfactory relative to visual assessments was observed and likely reflects well-established difficulties with odor object identification. Taken together, our study demonstrates that olfactory stimuli can be used in experimental settings to evoke separable experiences of liking and wanting for food and non-food stimuli. Manipulating these components independently across sensory modalities in experimental studies could generate novel insights into how olfactory and visual cues differentially contribute to anticipatory and consummatory food reward processing, in healthy and disordered eating.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Appetite
Appetite 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
566
审稿时长
13.4 weeks
期刊介绍: Appetite is an international research journal specializing in cultural, social, psychological, sensory and physiological influences on the selection and intake of foods and drinks. It covers normal and disordered eating and drinking and welcomes studies of both human and non-human animal behaviour toward food. Appetite publishes research reports, reviews and commentaries. Thematic special issues appear regularly. From time to time the journal carries abstracts from professional meetings. Submissions to Appetite are expected to be based primarily on observations directly related to the selection and intake of foods and drinks; papers that are primarily focused on topics such as nutrition or obesity will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution to the understanding of appetite in line with the journal's aims and scope.
期刊最新文献
Childcare Staff Feeding Practices Associated with Children's Willingness-to-try-new-foods. Comparison of front-of-package nutrition labelling schemes in Costa Rica: a multi-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trial assessing objective understanding and purchase intention. Does Rejection of Inequality Encourage Green Consumption? The Effect of Power Distance Belief on Organic Food Consumption. "Flavor, fun, and vitamins"? Consumers' Lay Beliefs About Child-Oriented Food Products. Food rejection is associated with tactile sensitivity and tactile appreciation in three-year-old children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1