Extensive research has demonstrated that eye-tracking tasks can effectively indicate cognitive impairment. For example, lab-based eye-tracking tasks, such as the antisaccade task, have robustly distinguished between people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and healthy older adults. Due to the neurodegeneration associated with AD, people with AD often display extended saccade latencies and increased error rates on eye-tracking tasks. Although the effectiveness of using eye tracking to identify cognitive impairment appears promising, research considering the utility of eye tracking during naturalistic tasks, such as reading, in identifying cognitive impairment is limited. The current review identified 39 articles assessing eye-tracking distinctions between people with AD, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and healthy controls when completing naturalistic task (reading, real-life simulations, static image search) or a goal-directed task involving naturalistic stimuli. The results revealed that naturalistic tasks show promising biomarkers and distinctions between healthy older adults and AD participants, and therefore show potential to be used for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. However, only twelve articles included MCI participants and assessed the sensitivity of measures to detect cognitive impairment in preclinical stages. In addition, the review revealed inconsistencies within the literature, particularly when assessing reading tasks. We urge researchers to expand on the current literature in this area and strive to assess the robustness and sensitivity of eye-tracking measures in both AD and MCI populations on naturalistic tasks.

Objective: We assessed perceptions of recently proposed UK obesity-related public health policies (mandatory calorie labelling, banning of advertisements of unhealthy food and drinks online and before 9 pm on TV, and banning “buy one get one free” deals for unhealthy food and drinks) in people with an eating disorder (ED) and other mental health conditions. Method: 1,273 participants with a self-reported mental health condition (N=583 with an ED) completed an online survey in September – November 2022. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine support for and potential adverse effects of policies in participants with and without an ED. Qualitative analysis of potential effects of the policy on current ED symptoms was also conducted to better understand how and why policies may be damaging or beneficial.Results: Participants with an ED tended to support all obesity policies, but were less likely to support the implementation of the calorie labelling policy (43% of ED participants supported vs. 58% of non-ED participants). Half of the participants with an ED (55%) reported that labelling may worsen their ED symptoms. Qualitative data indicated perceived potential harm (e.g., a gateway to relapse, negative effects on mood) and perceived benefits (e.g., feeling informed and reassured) of calorie labelling in participants with an ED. No differences in support or perceived harms of the other two policies were observed between participants with vs. without an ED.Discussion: Future studies are warranted to understand how to mitigate the potential harmful effects of calorie labelling in people with an ED.

ObjectiveWe assessed perceptions of recently proposed UK obesity policies (mandatory calorie labeling, banning of advertisements of unhealthy food and drinks online and before 9 pm on TV, and banning “buy one get one free” deals for unhealthy food and drinks) in people with an eating disorder (ED) and other mental health conditions.MethodA total of 1273 participants with a self‐reported lifetime mental health condition (N = 583 with an ED) completed an online survey in September–November 2022. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine support for and potential adverse effects of policies in participants with and without an ED. A qualitative analysis of the potential effects of the policy on current ED symptoms was also conducted to better understand how and why policies may be damaging or beneficial.ResultsParticipants with an ED had a lower level of support for the implementation of the calorie labeling policy compared to those without an ED (43% vs. 58%). Half of the participants with an ED (55%) reported that labeling may worsen their ED symptoms. Qualitative data indicated perceived potential harm (e.g., a gateway to relapse, negative effects on mood) and perceived benefits (e.g., feeling informed and reassured) of calorie labeling in participants with an ED. No differences in support or perceived harms of the other two policies were observed between participants with versus without an ED.DiscussionFuture studies are warranted to explore the potential effects of calorie labeling and how to mitigate negative impacts on people with an ED.Public SignificanceThis research is the first to assess the perceptions of UK obesity‐related policies in people with an ED and other mental health conditions. Participants with an ED (vs. without) were more likely to disagree with the government implementing the calorie labeling policy. These findings highlight the potentially harmful effects of calorie labeling in people with an ED and the need for future research to understand how to mitigate negative impacts.