Search

This registration is for the student-led hypotheses for the 2019/20 GW4 Undergraduate Psychology Consortium, a collaboration between academics and students at the universities of Bath, Cardiff and Exeter and University West of England for final year dissertation projects. This year's project will investigate different modalities for delivering inhibitory control training, a simple computerised task that has been found to reduce choice and intake of energy-dense foods. The main protocol is registered here: osf.io/9raqb

This registration is the protocol and primary hypotheses for the 2019/20 GW4 Undergraduate Psychology Consortium, a collaboration between academics and students at the universities of Bath, Cardiff and Exeter and University West of England for final year dissertation projects. This year's project will investigate different modalities for delivering inhibitory control training, a simple computerised task that has been found to reduce choice and intake of energy-dense foods. Student-led secondary hypothesis can be found here: osf.io/nwhdy

Food-specific inhibition training (FSIT) requires users to inhibit responses to energy-dense (ED) food stimuli within a reaction time game. FSIT reduces choice and liking of ED foods. Research with the public shows larger effects when FSIT is delivered by computer versus smartphone. This pre-registered study is the first to compare computer-FSIT versus smartphone-FSIT in a controlled setting. Three-hundred-and-thirty-one adults were randomised to computer-FSIT, smartphone-FSIT or non-food control training (computer-delivered). In session 1, participants completed baseline measures of impulsive food choice, food approach bias (approach/avoid implicit association test), and food liking ratings, before completing eight minutes of FSIT/control training. In session 2, participants repeated the same training task, followed by the same measures of food choice, approach bias and liking. We hypothesised that FSIT groups would show healthier food choices, lower ED food liking, and reduced ED food approach bias at post-training compared to control. We expected no statistically significant differences between the two FSIT groups. Post-exclusions, data for 259 participants was analysed. Contrary to predictions, there was no evidence of significant group differences on any of the outcome measures. Baseline measures suggest participants already showed high approach to healthy foods, which may explain these null results.