Characterizing individual differences in reward sensitivity from the brain networks involved in response inhibition

Pilot test of a novel food response and attention training treatment for obesity: Brain imaging data suggest actions shape valuation

“…Follow-up tests of the significant interaction showed intervention participants significantly decreased over time at approximately twice the magnitude ( F [1, 19] = 37.74, p < .001, d = 2.81) compared to control participants ( F [1, 17] = 7.55, p = .014, d = 1.33). Monetary ratings for high calorie foods changed over time ( F [1, 36] = 5.00, p = .032, d = .70), did not differ as a function of group ( F [1, 36] = 0.78, p = .384, d = .29) and showed significant condition × time differences ( F [1,36] = 7.57, p = .009, d = .92; food response training: pretest M = 4.7 [ SD = 1.4], posttest M = 3.5 [ SD = 1.0]; control: pretest M = 4.3 [ SD = 1.0], posttest M = 4.5 [ SD = 1.5]).…”

“…Monetary ratings for high calorie foods changed over time ( F [1, 36] = 5.00, p = .032, d = .70), did not differ as a function of group ( F [1, 36] = 0.78, p = .384, d = .29) and showed significant condition × time differences ( F [1,36] = 7.57, p = .009, d = .92; food response training: pretest M = 4.7 [ SD = 1.4], posttest M = 3.5 [ SD = 1.0]; control: pretest M = 4.3 [ SD = 1.0], posttest M = 4.5 [ SD = 1.5]). Follow-up tests of the significant interaction showed intervention participants significantly decreased over time ( F [1, 19] = 9.36, p < .001, d = 1.40) whereas control participants did not ( F [1, 17] = 0.32, p = .576, d = .28). No significant condition × time effect was found for palatability or monetary ratings for low-calorie foods.…”

“…Follow-up tests of the significant interaction showed that percent body fat of intervention participants significantly decreased over time ( F [1, 19] = 9.83, p = .005, d = 1.44) whereas that of control participants did not change over time ( F [1, 19] = 0.19, p = .665, d = .20). Pre to posttest results showed that BMI did not change over time ( F [1, 39] = 0.02, p = .877, d = .05), did not differ as a function of group ( F [1, 39] = 1.00, p = .324, d = .32) and did not show a significant condition × time interaction ( F [1, 39] = 0.02, p = .877, d < .01; BMI: pretest M = 37.7 [ SD = 9.2], posttest M = 37.7 [ SD = 9.2] for response training participants and pretest M = 35.0 [ SD = 7.7], posttest M = 35.0 [ SD = 7.6] for control participants).…”

Reward network connectivity “at rest” is associated with reward sensitivity in healthy adults: A resting-state fMRI study

“…According to Aarts, van Holstein, and Cools (2011), individual differences in appetitive motivation appear to have parallel effects to those of increases in striatal dopamine, that is, the enhancement of cognitive flexibility, which may, however, come at the expense of reduced cognitive focusing (i.e., greater distractibility). There are different behavioral and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies showing that reward sensitivity determines differences in cognitive processing (Avila, 1995;Avila et al, 2012;Avila, Barrós, Ortet, Parcet, & Ibañez, 2003;Avila & Parcet, 1997;Avila & Parcet, 2002;Fuentes-Claramonte et al, 2015, 2016a, 2016bFuentes et al, 2014aFuentes et al, , 2014b. All this evidence is compatible with the idea that BAS-related traits should explain individual differences in cognition.…”

“…Thus, BAS scores in healthy participants correlated with greater activity in the brain areas involved in the mesolimbic and mesocortical pathways during the processing of reward cues. Importantly, other research has demonstrated that BAS scores determine different activity in mesolimbic and prefrontal areas during performance on executive tasks (Avila et al, 2012;Fuentes-Claramonte et al, 2016a, 2016bFuentes et al, 2014aFuentes et al, , 2014b.…”