↓ Skip to main content

General and Food-Specific Inhibitory Control As Moderators of the Effects of the Impulsive Systems on Food Choices

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
General and Food-Specific Inhibitory Control As Moderators of the Effects of the Impulsive Systems on Food Choices
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00802
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuemeng Zhang, Shuaiyu Chen, Hong Chen, Yan Gu, Wenjian Xu

Abstract

The present study aimed to extend the application of the reflective-impulsive model to restrained eating and explore the effect of automatic attention (impulsive system) on food choices. Furthermore, we examined the moderating effects of general inhibitory control (G-IC) and food-specific inhibitory control (F-IC) on successful and unsuccessful restrained eaters (US-REs). Automatic attention was measured using "the EyeLink 1000," which tracked eye movements during the process of making food choices, and G-IC and F-IC were measured using the Stop-Signal Task. The results showed that food choices were related to automatic attention and that G-IC and F-IC moderated the predictive relationship between automatic attention and food choices. Furthermore, among successful restrained eaters (S-REs), automatic attention to high caloric foods did not predict food choices, regardless of whether G-IC or F-IC was high or low. Whereas food choice was positively correlated with automatic attention among US-REs with poor F-IC, this pattern was not observed in those with poor G-IC. In conclusion, the S-REs had more effective self-management skills and their food choices were affected less by automatic attention and inhibitory control. Unsuccessful restrained eating was associated with poor F-IC (not G-IC) and greater automatic attention to high caloric foods. Thus, clinical interventions should focus on enhancing F-IC, not G-IC, and on reducing automatic attention to high caloric foods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 33%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,344,573
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,212
of 30,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,313
of 313,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#395
of 605 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 605 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.