Episodic Memory and Appetite Regulation in Humans

Brunstrom, Jeffrey Michael; Burn, Jeremy F.; Sell, N.R.; Collingwood, Jane M.; Rogers, Peter J.; Wilkinson, Laura L.; Hinton, Elanor C.; Maynard, Olivia; Ferriday, Danielle

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050707

Cited by 110 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of human appetite studies suggest that both oral and gastric stimulation are needed for optimal satiety (69)(70)(71). However, the underlying process also involves integration of explicit 'knowledge' about the food and amount that has been consumed (72,73).…”

Section: How the Life-long Learning Process Contributes To Food Selecmentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of food choice

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health nudge interventions to steer people into healthier lifestyles are increasingly applied by governments worldwide, and it is natural to look to such approaches to improve health by altering what people choose to eat. However, to produce policy recommendations that are likely to be effective, we need to be able to make valid predictions about the consequences of proposed interventions, and for this, we need a better understanding of the determinants of food choice. These determinants include dietary components (e.g. highly palatable foods and alcohol), but also diverse cultural and social pressures, cognitive-affective factors (perceived stress, health attitude, anxiety and depression), and familial, genetic and epigenetic influences on personality characteristics. In addition, our choices are influenced by an array of physiological mechanisms, including signals to the brain from the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue, which affect not only our hunger and satiety but also our motivation to eat particular nutrients, and the reward we experience from eating. Thus, to develop the evidence base necessary for effective policies, we need to build bridges across different levels of knowledge and understanding. This requires experimental models that can fill in the gaps in our understanding that are needed to inform policy, translational models that connect mechanistic understanding from laboratory studies to the real life human condition, and formal models that encapsulate scientific knowledge from diverse disciplines, and which embed understanding in a way that enables policy-relevant predictions to be made. Here we review recent developments in these areas.

show abstract

Section: How the Life-long Learning Process Contributes To Food Selecmentioning

confidence: 99%

The determinants of food choice

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, amnesic patients, who are unable to remember eating, eat multiple meals in quick succession (Hebben, Corkin, Eichenbaum, & Shedlack, 1985;Higgs, Williamson, Rotshtein, & Humphreys, 2008;Rozin, Dow, Moscovitch, & Rajaram, 1998). Furthermore, inducing a false memory of what has been eaten has been found to influence appetite in the intermeal interval (Brunstrom et al, 2012). In line with the view that an important function of memory is to be able to more reliably predict the future by utilising past experience, these results suggest that memories formed during eating are factored into future decisions about when and how much to eat, probably because they allow for efficient prediction about whether consumption of food is likely to be rewarding (Martin & Davidson, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulations of attention during eating and their effects on later snack intake

Higgs

2015

Appetite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manipulation of attention during eating has been reported to affect later consumption via changes in meal memory. The aim of the present studies was to examine the robustness of these effects and investigate moderating factors. Across three studies, attention to eating was manipulated via distraction (via a computer game or TV watching) or focusing of attention to eating, and effects on subsequent snack consumption and meal memory were assessed. The participants were predominantly lean, young women students and the designs were between-subjects. Distraction increased later snack intake and this effect was larger when participants were more motivated to engage with the distracter and were offset when the distractor included food-related cues. Attention to eating reduced later snacking and this effect was larger when participants imagined eating from their own perspective than when they imagined eating from a third person perspective. Meal memory was impaired after distraction but focusing on eating did not affect later meal memory, possibly explained by ceiling effects for the memory measure. The pattern of results suggests that attention manipulations during eating have robust effects on later eating and the effect sizes are medium to large. The data are consistent with previous reports and add to the literature by suggesting that type of attention manipulation is important in determining effects on later eating. The results further suggest that attentive eating may be a useful target in interventions to help with appetite control.

show abstract

“…Again subjects underestimated their actual consumption and additionally did not feel more satiated. As noted, Brunstrom et al (2012) demonstrated that visual information regarding the amount of food affects satiety expectations and satiety feelings as well. The present study is new in that it investigated the impact of very subtle aspects of food -the influence of visual appearance other than volume on satiety estimations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…For additional examples of the impact of sensory attributes on expected satiety, see also and Yeomans and Chambers (2011). Brunstrom et al (2012) showed how visual information can affect satiety expectations. In their research, subjects were asked to consume a bowl containing either 300 or 500 ml soup for lunch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%