What Is Trained During Food Go/No-Go Training? A Review Focusing on Mechanisms and a Research Agenda

Veling, Harm; Lawrence, Natalia; Chen, Zhang; Koningsbruggen, Guido M. van; Holland, Rob W.

doi:10.1007/s40429-017-0131-5

Cited by 171 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, many studies have reported the change in inhibitory control accuracy (commission errors) over the course of training as supporting evidence for this first account (Jones, Hardman, Lawrence, & Field, 2017;Veling, Lawrence, Chen, Van Koningsbruggen, & Holland, 2017). Yet, improvements in inhibitory control accuracy over multiple training sessions could result from learning stimulus-stop contingencies instead of the strengthening of top-down control (Verbruggen, Best, Bowditch, Stevens, & McLaren, 2014;Veling et al, 2017). This alternative bottom-up account hypothesizes that No-Go stimuli trigger inhibition in a stimulus driven way, creating an automatic 'learned reflex' .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this assumption has only been tested once by including inhibitory control as an outcome measure with a pre-test/ post-test design, with no effects of GNG training on top-down inhibitory control (Adams et al, 2017). Instead, many studies have reported the change in inhibitory control accuracy (commission errors) over the course of training as supporting evidence for this first account (Jones, Hardman, Lawrence, & Field, 2017;Veling, Lawrence, Chen, Van Koningsbruggen, & Holland, 2017). Yet, improvements in inhibitory control accuracy over multiple training sessions could result from learning stimulus-stop contingencies instead of the strengthening of top-down control (Verbruggen, Best, Bowditch, Stevens, & McLaren, 2014;Veling et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do smokers devaluate smoking cues after go/no-go training?

Scholten

Granic

Chen

et al. 2019

Psychology & Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Smoking is one of the leading public health problems worldwide. The inability to quit smoking may be the result of the amplified value of smoking-related cues and inhibitory control deficits. Previous research has shown that pairing substancerelated cues with no-go trials in go/no-go training reduces the value of these cues, an effect known as devaluation. The current experiment investigated the devaluation effect of go/no-go training on smoking-related cues, and compared this effect between smokers and nonsmokers. Design and Main Outcome Measures: 39 smokers and 43 nonsmokers were trained to respond immediately to neutral stimuli, but inhibit their reaction when smoking stimuli were presented. Before and after training, participants evaluated smoking and neutral stimuli, where part of these stimuli were subsequently presented in the training, and the other part was not used in training. Results: Not responding to smoking stimuli in go/no-go training decreased subsequent evaluations of trained smoking stimuli compared to untrained smoking stimuli, thereby replicating food and alcohol studies and extending the devaluation effect to smoking-related cues. This devaluation effect was found for both smokers and non-smokers.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do smokers devaluate smoking cues after go/no-go training?

Scholten

Granic

Chen

et al. 2019

Psychology & Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have hypothesized and demonstrated that instead (or additionally), repeatedly inhibiting responses to highly evaluated stimuli leads to devaluation of those stimuli. Since the stimuli are liked less after training, they should also be easier to resist outside the laboratory (Jones et al, 2016;Veling, Lawrence, Chen, van Koningsbruggen, & Holland, 2017). However, only few studies have investigated changes in implicit attitudes toward trained food items as a mechanism of Go/No-Go training (Aulbach et al, 2019;Houben & Jansen, 2015;Kakoschke, Kemps, & Tiggemann, 2017;Verbeken, Braet, Naets, Houben, & Boendermaker, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence of calorie‐related modulation of N2 in food‐related Go/No‐Go training: A preregistered ERP study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Go/No‐Go tasks, which require participants to inhibit automatic responses to images of palatable foods, have shown diagnostic value in quantifying food‐related impulses. Moreover, they have shown potential for training to control impulsive eating. To test the hypothesis that training modulates early neural markers of response inhibition, the current study investigated how the N2 event‐related brain potential to high‐ and low‐calorie food images changes along Go‐/No‐Go training and how the N2 is related to later eating behavior. 50 healthy adults, (mBMI = 23.01) first completed a food Go/No‐Go task in which high‐ and low‐calorie food images were accompanied by Go‐and No‐Go‐cues with equal frequency. Participants then completed a training block in which high‐calorie foods were predominantly paired with a No‐Go cue and the low‐calorie foods with a Go cue, followed by a block with reversed coupling (order of the training blocks counterbalanced between participants). After each training, there was a snacking opportunity during which calorie intake was measured. Against our preregistered hypotheses, the N2‐amplitudes were not significantly affected by the calorie‐content and there was no training‐related modulation in the N2. In addition , food intake was not influenced by the preceding training blocks and the N2 amplitude did not predict the food intake. Our study suggests that the link between N2 obtained in a food‐related Go/No‐Go task and impulse control is not clear‐cut and may be limited to specific task characteristics. The results are of high importance as they question the previously assumed mechanism of Go/No‐Go training in food‐related inhibitory control.

show abstract

“…A behavioural intervention that trained no-go r e s p o n d i n g t o h i g h -c a l o r i e f o o d c u e s l e d t o devaluation of those items in normal-weight [184,185] and in morbidly obese participants [34,186], as well as impulsive food choices in normal-weight individuals [184,185]. The authors have proposed that training acts bottom-up by creating associations between no-go food items and stopping responses and reducing valuation of no-go food items (in the affective loop) [187]. A similar mechanism may explain a reduction of food intake in uncontrolled eaters after inhibitory control training [82] and of approach bias to unhealthy food cues in obesity after training automated action tendencies [42,188].…”

Section: Behavioural Control and Action Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lost in Translation? On the Need for Convergence in Animal and Human Studies on the Role of Dopamine in Diet-Induced Obesity

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Animal and human studies suggest that diet-induced obesity and plasticity in the central dopaminergic system are linked. However, it is unclear whether observed changes depend on diet or obesity, and whether they are specific to brain regions and cognitive functions. Here, we focus on neural and cognitive changes in frontostriatal circuits. Recent Findings Both diet and obesity affect dopaminergic transmission. However, site and direction of effects are inconsistent across species and studies. Non-specific changes are observed spanning all frontostriatal loops, from sensory input to motivated behaviour. Given the impact of peripheral signals on central dopaminergic signalling and the interaction between the frontostriatal loops, modulation of dopamine likely propagates through all loops and, thus, affects behaviour on various levels of complexity. Summary To improve convergence between animal and human studies on diet-induced obesity, animal studies should include sophisticated cognitive measures and diets resembling human obesogenic diets, and human studies should adopt diet interventions and longitudinal designs.

show abstract

What Is Trained During Food Go/No-Go Training? A Review Focusing on Mechanisms and a Research Agenda

Cited by 171 publications

References 57 publications

Do smokers devaluate smoking cues after go/no-go training?

Do smokers devaluate smoking cues after go/no-go training?

No evidence of calorie‐related modulation of N2 in food‐related Go/No‐Go training: A preregistered ERP study

Lost in Translation? On the Need for Convergence in Animal and Human Studies on the Role of Dopamine in Diet-Induced Obesity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About