Results emphasize the importance of identifying different attention bias components in overweight individuals with regard to craving and subsequent overeating.

The proposed theoretical synthesis may account for the contributions of appetitive and aversive motivational processes involved in self-regulatory conflicts to AB, and it yields testable predictions about the conditions under which AB should predict and have a causal influence on future consummatory behavior. This has implications for the prediction and modification of unhealthy behaviors and associated disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record

Living in an 'obesogenic' environment poses a serious challenge for weight maintenance. However, many people are able to maintain a healthy weight indicating that not everybody is equally susceptible to the temptations of this food environment. The way in which someone perceives and reacts to food cues, that is, cognitive processes, could underlie differences in susceptibility. An attention bias for food could be such a cognitive factor that contributes to overeating. However, an attention bias for food has also been implicated with restrained eating and eating-disorder symptomatology. The primary aim of the present review was to determine whether an attention bias for food is specifically related to obesity while also reviewing evidence for attention biases in eating-disorder patients, restrained eaters and healthy-weight individuals. Another aim was to systematically examine how selective attention for food relates (causally) to eating behaviour. Current empirical evidence on attention bias for food within obese samples, eating-disorder patients, and, even though to a lesser extent, in restrained eaters is contradictory. However, present experimental studies provide relatively consistent evidence that an attention bias for food contributes to subsequent food intake. This review highlights the need to distinguish not only between different (temporal) attention bias components, but also to take different motivations (craving v. worry) and their impact on attentional processing into account. Overall, the current state of research suggests that biased attention could be one important cognitive mechanism by which the food environment tempts us into overeating.Attention bias: Obesity: Craving: Restrained eating: Eating disorder Surrounded by an 'obesogenic' food environment?Obesity and overweight constitute a serious risk for psychological and physical wellbeing (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) . The WHO estimates that 2·8 million people die each year due to the adverse consequences of overweight and obesity (7,8) . Ultimately, obesity is caused by a long-lasting imbalance of energy intake and energy expenditure. This imbalance is mainly caused by excessive food intake (9,10) . Our 'obesogenic' food environment is characterised by an abundance of palatable, high-energy, cheap and convenient food that is constantly available and promoted aggressively (11,12) . Living in such an environment poses a serious challenge for maintaining a healthy weight. However, the majority of individuals have a healthy weight suggesting that not everybody is equally susceptible to the temptations of this obesogenic food environment. What explains these apparent individual differences in susceptibility? One hypothesis is that certain people find high-energy food more attractive and that this increased 'hedonic hunger' (13) leads to craving and (over)eating thereby contributing to weight gain and obesity. Cognitive processes (i.e. the way in which someone processes and perceives food temptations),

These findings demonstrate further evidence for a link between attention for food and food intake, and provide an indication about the direction of this relationship.

Food texture but not taste or colour alternations affected food acceptance, at least when consuming variations of a well-liked yoghurt. This knowledge is important for further research on picky-eating interventions. Parental reports of fussy eating did not concur with the behavioural observation of food acceptance. Further research is warranted to test whether these findings generalize to other food types.

Attention bias for food could be a cognitive pathway to overeating in obesity and restrained eating. Yet, empirical evidence for individual differences (e.g., in restrained eating and body mass index) in attention bias for food is mixed. We tested experimentally if temporarily induced health versus palatability mindsets influenced attention bias for food, and whether restrained eating moderated this relation. After manipulating mindset (health vs. palatability) experimentally, food-related attention bias was measured by eye-movements (EM) and response latencies (RL) during a visual probe task depicting high-calorie food and non-food. Restrained eating was assessed afterwards. A significant interaction of mindset and restrained eating on RL bias emerged, β = 0.36, t(58) = 2.05, p = 0.045: A health mindset - as compared to a palatability mindset - attenuated attention bias for high-caloric food only in participants with higher eating restraint. No effects were observed on EM biases. The current results demonstrate that state differences in health versus palatability mindsets can cause attenuated attention bias for high-calorie food cues in participants with higher eating restraint. Our findings add to emerging evidence that state differences in mindsets can bias attention for food, above the influence of trait differences.

Treatment outcomes in anorexia nervosa (AN) remain suboptimal, evidencing the need for better and more targeted treatments. Whilst the aetiology of AN is complex, cognitive processes such as attention bias (AB) have been proposed to contribute to maintaining food restriction behaviour. Attention bias modification raining (ABMT) has been investigated in other eating disorders (EDs) such as binge eating disorder (BED) as a means of modifying AB for food and of changing eating behaviour. Promising findings have been reported, but the mechanisms underlying ABMT are poorly understood. We hypothesise that in AN, ABMT has the potential to modify maladaptive eating behaviours related to anxiety around food and eating and propose two mechanistic models; (1) ABMT increases general attentional control (which will improve control over disorder-relevant thoughts) or (2) ABMT promotes stimulus re-evaluation. In this second case, the effects of ABMT might arise via changes in the subjective value of food stimuli (i.e. reward processing) or via habituation, with both resulting in a reduced threat response. Investigating the clinical potential of ABMT in AN holds the promise of a novel, evidence-based adjunctive treatment approach. Importantly, understanding ABMT's underlying mechanisms will help tailor treatment protocols and improve understanding of the cognitive characteristics of AN and other EDs.

These findings suggest that attention biases for food-related cues are common for healthy weight women and show that restrained eating (per se) is not related to biased processing of food stimuli, at least not in healthy weight participants.