Neural correlates underlying preference changes induced by food Go/No-Go training

Wu, Qian; Xia, Haishuo; Shields, Grant S.; Nie, Haoyu; Li, Jiwen; Chen, Hong; Yang, Yuhu

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2023.106578

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, previous work has gone beyond stimulus evaluation, and used measures that are less susceptible to demand. For instance, both the GNG and AAT have been shown to influence food choices for real consumption (e.g., Chen et al, 2019 , 2021 ; Porter et al, 2018 ; Veling et al, 2021 ; Wu et al, 2023 ), which cannot be explained by demand compliance alone. Furthermore, changes in preference were correlated with changes in ratings (Johannes et al, 2021 ; Veling et al, 2021 ), suggesting that common cognitive processes (e.g., changes in stimulus value) may underlie both behavioral effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action Interpretation Determines the Effects of Go/No-Go and Approach/Avoidance Actions on Stimulus Evaluation

Chen,

Van Dessel

2024

Open Mind

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executing go/no-go or approach/avoidance responses toward a stimulus can change its evaluation. To explain these effects, some theoretical accounts propose that executing these responses inherently triggers affective reactions (i.e., action execution), while others posit that the evaluative influences originate from interpreting these responses as valenced actions (i.e., action interpretation). To test the role of action execution and action interpretation in these evaluative effects, we developed a novel training task that combined both go/no-go and approach/avoidance actions orthogonally. Participants either responded or did not respond (i.e., go/no-go) to control a shopping cart on screen, and as a result, either collected or did not collect (i.e., approach/avoidance) certain food items. When the task instructions referred to the go/no-go actions (Experiment 1, N = 148), we observed an effect of these actions. Participants evaluated no-go items less positively than both go and untrained items. No effect of approach/avoidance actions was observed. Contrarily, when the task instructions referred to the approach/avoidance actions (Experiment 2, N = 158), we observed an approach/avoidance effect. Participants evaluated approached items more positively and avoided items less positively than untrained items. No effect of go/no-go actions was observed. This suggests that action interpretation determined whether go/no-go or approach/avoidance actions influenced stimulus evaluation, when the same motor responses were made. Further examination of the role of action interpretation can inform theories of how actions influence stimulus evaluation, and facilitate the use of these interventions in applied settings.

show abstract