Food as an eye-catcher. An eye-tracking study on Children's attention to healthy and unhealthy food presentations as well as non-edible objects in audiovisual media.
Cue reactivity
body mass index
children
eye tracking
food presentations
Journal
Pediatric obesity
ISSN: 2047-6310
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Obes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101572033
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
received:
18
03
2019
accepted:
08
10
2019
pubmed:
7
1
2020
medline:
2
9
2020
entrez:
7
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Food presentations within media content are often made responsible for todays' obesity epidemic. This assessment is based on the assumption that food presentations create cue reactivity, which in turn affects the amount of food intake. This study investigates children's implicit reactions (cue reactivity) toward healthy, unhealthy, and non-ediblel objects. We conducted an experimental eye-tracking study comparing children's cue reactivity assessed with visual attention toward healthy and unhealthy food presentations, as well as non-edible objects. We controlled for the role of children's hunger, body mass index (BMI), and age. Results indicated no difference between healthy and unhealthy food presentations, yet food generally aroused more visual attention in children compared to non-edible objects. Explicit memory for the embedded foods or objects was mediated through visual attention. However, unhealthy food presentations also directly affected children's explicit memory. Compared to non-edible objects, food presentations seem to be eye-catchers that immediately grab children's attention and they are also able to maintain this attention. Yet, for unhealthy food presentations, memory seems to be less dependent on visual attention. That is, compared to healthy products or non-edible objects, unhealthy food presentations do not require the same amount of visual attention in order to be remembered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Food presentations within media content are often made responsible for todays' obesity epidemic. This assessment is based on the assumption that food presentations create cue reactivity, which in turn affects the amount of food intake.
OBJECTIVE
This study investigates children's implicit reactions (cue reactivity) toward healthy, unhealthy, and non-ediblel objects.
METHODS
We conducted an experimental eye-tracking study comparing children's cue reactivity assessed with visual attention toward healthy and unhealthy food presentations, as well as non-edible objects. We controlled for the role of children's hunger, body mass index (BMI), and age.
RESULTS
Results indicated no difference between healthy and unhealthy food presentations, yet food generally aroused more visual attention in children compared to non-edible objects. Explicit memory for the embedded foods or objects was mediated through visual attention. However, unhealthy food presentations also directly affected children's explicit memory.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to non-edible objects, food presentations seem to be eye-catchers that immediately grab children's attention and they are also able to maintain this attention. Yet, for unhealthy food presentations, memory seems to be less dependent on visual attention. That is, compared to healthy products or non-edible objects, unhealthy food presentations do not require the same amount of visual attention in order to be remembered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31905267
doi: 10.1111/ijpo.12591
pmc: PMC7027508
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12591Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Pediatric Obesity published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of World Obesity Federation.
Références
Pediatr Obes. 2018 Jan;13(1):63-69
pubmed: 27884050
Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Feb;97(2):239-45
pubmed: 23269821
Appetite. 2015 Jan;84:251-8
pubmed: 25451582
J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1973 Sep;84(3):496-501
pubmed: 4745817
J Gen Psychol. 2010 Jan-Mar;137(1):37-48
pubmed: 20198815
Appetite. 2015 Aug;91:165-72
pubmed: 25839731
J Nutr Educ Behav. 2014 Jan;46(1):20-25
pubmed: 24210973
Int J Pediatr Obes. 2011 Oct;6(5-6):455-61
pubmed: 21846176
Public Health Nutr. 2008 Sep;11(9):897-904
pubmed: 18005487
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Jun;21(3):300-5
pubmed: 20478835
Appetite. 2000 Aug;35(1):45-55
pubmed: 10896760
Pediatrics. 2014 Jun;133(6):1007-12
pubmed: 24799543
Pediatr Obes. 2014 Oct;9(5):362-72
pubmed: 23818245
Pediatr Obes. 2020 Mar;15(3):e12591
pubmed: 31905267
Appetite. 2017 Jul 1;114:118-124
pubmed: 28323061
Appetite. 1982 Dec;3(4):353-60
pubmed: 7168567
Appetite. 2018 Jun 1;125:63-71
pubmed: 29410047
Pediatr Obes. 2019 Apr;14(4):e12488
pubmed: 30515987
Physiol Behav. 2008 Aug 6;94(5):722-8
pubmed: 18499202
Appetite. 2010 Apr;54(2):243-54
pubmed: 19922752
Am J Prev Med. 2011 Sep;41(3):291-6
pubmed: 21855743
Appetite. 2009 Feb;52(1):230-3
pubmed: 18691621
Appetite. 2012 Apr;58(2):508-16
pubmed: 22245131
Health Psychol. 2009 Jul;28(4):404-13
pubmed: 19594263
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Mar;19(4):616-24
pubmed: 26080616
Int J Obes (Lond). 2009 Sep;33(9):1063-73
pubmed: 19621020
J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Apr;108(4):673-8
pubmed: 18375225
Appetite. 2018 Jan 1;120:644-653
pubmed: 29056518
Behav Res Ther. 1998 Mar;36(3):257-72
pubmed: 9642846
Psychol Bull. 1998 Nov;124(3):372-422
pubmed: 9849112
Pediatrics. 2010 Mar;125(3):468-74
pubmed: 20142289
Appetite. 2004 Apr;42(2):221-5
pubmed: 15010186
Physiol Behav. 2012 Aug 20;107(1):146-53
pubmed: 22677722
Int J Pediatr Obes. 2008;3(1):31-8
pubmed: 17963122