Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder differs from anorexia nervosa in delay discounting.
Anorexia nervosa
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder
Delay discounting
Delay of gratification
Eating disorders
Feeding and eating disorders
Journal
Journal of eating disorders
ISSN: 2050-2974
Titre abrégé: J Eat Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101610672
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jan 2024
29 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
13
07
2023
accepted:
18
12
2023
medline:
30
1
2024
pubmed:
30
1
2024
entrez:
30
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are the two primary restrictive eating disorders; however, they are driven by differing motives for inadequate dietary intake. Despite overlap in restrictive eating behaviors and subsequent malnutrition, it remains unknown if ARFID and AN also share commonalities in their cognitive profiles, with cognitive alterations being a key identifier of AN. Discounting the present value of future outcomes with increasing delay to their expected receipt represents a core cognitive process guiding human decision-making. A hallmark cognitive characteristic of individuals with AN (vs. healthy controls [HC]) is reduced discounting of future outcomes, resulting in reduced impulsivity and higher likelihood of favoring delayed gratification. Whether individuals with ARFID display a similar reduction in delay discounting as those with AN (vs. an opposing bias towards increased delay discounting or no bias) is important in informing transdiagnostic versus disorder-specific cognitive characteristics and optimizing future intervention strategies. To address this research question, 104 participants (ARFID: n = 57, AN: n = 28, HC: n = 19) completed a computerized Delay Discounting Task. Groups were compared by their delay discounting parameter (ln)k. Individuals with ARFID displayed a larger delay discounting parameter than those with AN, indicating steeper delay discounting (M ± SD = -6.10 ± 2.00 vs. -7.26 ± 1.73, p = 0.026 [age-adjusted], Hedges' g = 0.59), with no difference from HC (p = 0.514, Hedges' g = -0.35). Our findings provide a first indication of distinct cognitive profiles among the two primary restrictive eating disorders. The present results, together with future research spanning additional cognitive domains and including larger and more diverse samples of individuals with ARFID (vs. AN), will contribute to identifying maintenance mechanisms that are unique to each disorder as well as contribute to the optimization and tailoring of treatment strategies across the spectrum of restrictive eating disorders. Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are both restrictive eating disorders. However, the reasons for restricting food intake differ between the two diagnoses. A key question in further understanding similarities and differences between ARFID and AN is to understand whether individuals with these disorders process information and make decisions in similar or distinct ways. When humans decide between two different outcomes (e.g., a smaller immediate or a larger delayed reward), outcomes decrease in their value the farther in the future we expect to receive them (delay discounting). Individuals with AN exhibit a reduced discounting of future outcomes, which makes them more likely to forego immediate gratification for later rewards. However, whether this holds true for individuals with ARFID too (or whether they show the opposite or no bias) is unknown. Our investigation is the first to compare delay discounting between individuals with ARFID, AN, and healthy controls (HC). Our results show that individuals with ARFID show more delay discounting than those with AN, with no difference from HC. Knowing how rewards are being chosen and decisions made (and knowing differences between diagnoses) will be helpful in further optimizing and tailoring treatments for restrictive eating disorders.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are the two primary restrictive eating disorders; however, they are driven by differing motives for inadequate dietary intake. Despite overlap in restrictive eating behaviors and subsequent malnutrition, it remains unknown if ARFID and AN also share commonalities in their cognitive profiles, with cognitive alterations being a key identifier of AN. Discounting the present value of future outcomes with increasing delay to their expected receipt represents a core cognitive process guiding human decision-making. A hallmark cognitive characteristic of individuals with AN (vs. healthy controls [HC]) is reduced discounting of future outcomes, resulting in reduced impulsivity and higher likelihood of favoring delayed gratification. Whether individuals with ARFID display a similar reduction in delay discounting as those with AN (vs. an opposing bias towards increased delay discounting or no bias) is important in informing transdiagnostic versus disorder-specific cognitive characteristics and optimizing future intervention strategies.
METHOD
METHODS
To address this research question, 104 participants (ARFID: n = 57, AN: n = 28, HC: n = 19) completed a computerized Delay Discounting Task. Groups were compared by their delay discounting parameter (ln)k.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Individuals with ARFID displayed a larger delay discounting parameter than those with AN, indicating steeper delay discounting (M ± SD = -6.10 ± 2.00 vs. -7.26 ± 1.73, p = 0.026 [age-adjusted], Hedges' g = 0.59), with no difference from HC (p = 0.514, Hedges' g = -0.35).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provide a first indication of distinct cognitive profiles among the two primary restrictive eating disorders. The present results, together with future research spanning additional cognitive domains and including larger and more diverse samples of individuals with ARFID (vs. AN), will contribute to identifying maintenance mechanisms that are unique to each disorder as well as contribute to the optimization and tailoring of treatment strategies across the spectrum of restrictive eating disorders.
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are both restrictive eating disorders. However, the reasons for restricting food intake differ between the two diagnoses. A key question in further understanding similarities and differences between ARFID and AN is to understand whether individuals with these disorders process information and make decisions in similar or distinct ways. When humans decide between two different outcomes (e.g., a smaller immediate or a larger delayed reward), outcomes decrease in their value the farther in the future we expect to receive them (delay discounting). Individuals with AN exhibit a reduced discounting of future outcomes, which makes them more likely to forego immediate gratification for later rewards. However, whether this holds true for individuals with ARFID too (or whether they show the opposite or no bias) is unknown. Our investigation is the first to compare delay discounting between individuals with ARFID, AN, and healthy controls (HC). Our results show that individuals with ARFID show more delay discounting than those with AN, with no difference from HC. Knowing how rewards are being chosen and decisions made (and knowing differences between diagnoses) will be helpful in further optimizing and tailoring treatments for restrictive eating disorders.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and anorexia nervosa (AN) are both restrictive eating disorders. However, the reasons for restricting food intake differ between the two diagnoses. A key question in further understanding similarities and differences between ARFID and AN is to understand whether individuals with these disorders process information and make decisions in similar or distinct ways. When humans decide between two different outcomes (e.g., a smaller immediate or a larger delayed reward), outcomes decrease in their value the farther in the future we expect to receive them (delay discounting). Individuals with AN exhibit a reduced discounting of future outcomes, which makes them more likely to forego immediate gratification for later rewards. However, whether this holds true for individuals with ARFID too (or whether they show the opposite or no bias) is unknown. Our investigation is the first to compare delay discounting between individuals with ARFID, AN, and healthy controls (HC). Our results show that individuals with ARFID show more delay discounting than those with AN, with no difference from HC. Knowing how rewards are being chosen and decisions made (and knowing differences between diagnoses) will be helpful in further optimizing and tailoring treatments for restrictive eating disorders.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38287459
doi: 10.1186/s40337-023-00958-x
pii: 10.1186/s40337-023-00958-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
19Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : F31MH125495
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R03MH103402
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01MH103402
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01MH108595
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K23MH125143
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Références
Dann KM, Hay P, Touyz S. Are poor set-shifting and central coherence associated with everyday function in anorexia nervosa? A systematic review. J Eat Disord. 2021;9(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-021-00392-x .
doi: 10.1186/s40337-021-00392-x
pubmed: 33781337
pmcid: 8008586
Schmidt U, Treasure J. Anorexia nervosa: valued and visible. A cognitive-interpersonal maintenance model and its implications for research and practice. Br J Clin Psychol. 2006;45(Pt 3):343–66. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466505x53902 .
doi: 10.1348/014466505x53902
pubmed: 17147101
Amlung M, Marsden E, Holshausen K, Morris V, Patel H, Vedelago L, Naish KR, Reed DD, McCabe RE. Delay discounting as a transdiagnostic process in psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiat. 2019;76(11):1176–86. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102 .
doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.2102
Rachlin H. The science of self-control. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2000.
Steinglass JE, Figner B, Berkowitz S, Simpson HB, Weber EU, Walsh BT. Increased capacity to delay reward in anorexia nervosa. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2012;18(4):773–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617712000446 .
doi: 10.1017/S1355617712000446
pubmed: 22591835
pmcid: 3638253
Steinglass JE, Lempert KM, Choo TH, Kimeldorf MB, Wall M, Walsh BT, Simpson HB. Temporal discounting across three psychiatric disorders: Anorexia nervosa, obsessive compulsive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Depress Anxiety. 2017;34(5):463–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22586 .
doi: 10.1002/da.22586
pubmed: 28009473
Steward T, Mestre-Bach G, Vintró-Alcaraz C, Agüera Z, Jiménez-Murcia S, Granero R, Fernández-Aranda F. Delay discounting of reward and impulsivity in eating disorders: from anorexia nervosa to binge eating disorder. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2017;25(6):601–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2543 .
doi: 10.1002/erv.2543
pubmed: 29057603
Decker JH, Figner B, Steinglass JE. On weight and waiting: delay discounting in anorexia nervosa pretreatment and posttreatment. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;78(9):606–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.12.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.12.016
pubmed: 25641636
Basile C, Gigliotti F, Colaiori M, Santo FD, Terrinoni A, Ardizzone I, Sabatello U. Comparison of neuropsychological profiles in children and adolescent with anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). Eur Psychiatry. 2021;64(S1):S351–2. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.942 .
doi: 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.942
pmcid: 9470866
Thomas JJ, Becker KR, Eddy KT. The picky eater’s recovery book. Cambridge University Press; 2021.
doi: 10.1017/9781108854603
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Becker KR, Keshishian AC, Liebman RE, Coniglio KA, Wang SB, Franko DL, Eddy KT, Thomas JJ. Impact of expanded diagnostic criteria for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder on clinical comparisons with anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2019;52(3):230–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22988 .
doi: 10.1002/eat.22988
pubmed: 30578644
Burton Murray H, Dreier MJ, Zickgraf HF, Becker KR, Breithaupt L, Eddy KT, Thomas JJ. Validation of the nine item ARFID screen (NIAS) subscales for distinguishing ARFID presentations and screening for ARFID. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;54(10):1782–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23520 .
doi: 10.1002/eat.23520
pubmed: 33884646
Reilly EE, Brown TA, Gray EK, Kaye WH, Menzel JE. Exploring the Cooccurrence of behavioural phenotypes for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder in a partial hospitalization sample. Eur Eat Disord Rev. 2019;27(4):429–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2670 .
doi: 10.1002/erv.2670
pubmed: 30868707
Thomas JJ, Lawson EA, Micali N, Misra M, Deckersbach T, Eddy KT. Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: a three-dimensional model of neurobiology with implications for etiology and treatment. In: Current Psychiatry Reports (Vol. 19, Issue 8, pp. 1–9). Current Medicine Group LLC 1; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-017-0795-5
Kaufman J, Birmaher B, Axelson D, Perepletchikova F, Brent D, Ryan N. K-SADS-PL DSM-5 November 2016 (2016). Retrieved from https://www.pediatricbipolar.pitt.edu/sites/default/files/KSADS_DSM_5_SCREEN_Final.pdf .
Fairburn C, Beglin S. Eating disorder examination questionnaire. Cogn Behav Ther Eat Disord. 2008;309:313.
Spielberger C, Gorsuch R, Lushene R, Vagg P, Jacobs G. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population; 1977.
Zickgraf HF, Ellis JM. Initial validation of the Nine Item Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake disorder screen (NIAS): a measure of three restrictive eating patterns. Appetite. 2018;123:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.111 .
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.111
pubmed: 29208483
Kambanis PE, Bottera AR, de Young KP. Eating disorder prevalence among Amazon MTurk workers assessed using a rigorous online, self-report anthropometric assessment. Eat Behav. 2021;41: 101481. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EATBEH.2021.101481 .
doi: 10.1016/J.EATBEH.2021.101481
pubmed: 33713921
Kung FY, Kwok N, Brown DJ. Are attention check questions a threat to scale validity? Appl Psychol. 2018;67(2):264–83.
doi: 10.1111/apps.12108
Burton Murray H, Becker KR, Harshman S, Breithaupt L, Kuhnle M, Dreier MJ, Hauser K, Freizinger M, Eddy KT, Misra M, Kuo B, Micali N, Thomas JJ, Lawson EA. Elevated fasting satiety-promoting cholecystokinin (CCK) in avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder compared to healthy controls. J Clin Psychiatry. 2022;83(5):14111. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.21m14111 .
doi: 10.4088/jcp.21m14111
Germine LT, Joormann J, Passell E, Rutter LA, Scheuer L, Martini P, Hwang I, Lee S, Sampson N, Barch DM, House SL, Beaudoin FL, An X, Stevens JS, Zeng D, Linnstaedt SD, Jovanovic T, Clifford GD, Neylan TC, Kessler RC. Neurocognition after motor vehicle collision and adverse post-traumatic neuropsychiatric sequelae within 8 weeks: initial findings from the AURORA study. J Affect Disord. 2022;298:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.104 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.104
pubmed: 34800569
Mond JM, Hay PJ, Rodgers B, Owen C, Beumont PJV. Validity of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) in screening for eating disorders in community samples. Behav Res Ther. 2004;42(5):551–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00161-X .
doi: 10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00161-X
pubmed: 15033501
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2018). Available from https://www.r-project.org/ .
Wickham H, François R, Henry L, Müller K. dplyr: A Grammar of Data Manipulation (2022). https://dplyr.tidyverse.org , https://github.com/tidyverse/dplyr .
Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.2.9 (2022). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych .
Wei T, Simko V. R package 'corrplot': Visualization of a Correlation Matrix. (Version 0.92) (2021). https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot .
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen TL, Miller E, Bache SM, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel DP, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(43):1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686 .
doi: 10.21105/joss.01686
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer New York; 2016. ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4, https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org .
Wickham H. stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrappers for Common String Operations (2022). https://stringr.tidyverse.org , https://github.com/tidyverse/stringr .
Nakazawa M. fmsb: Functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data (2022). Available from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fmsb/index.html .
Kassambara A. Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests [R package rstatix version 0.7.1]. The Comprehensive R Archive Network (2022). Retrieved January 29, 2023, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rstatix/index.html
Lawyer SR, Schoepflin F, Green R, Jenks C. Discounting of hypothetical and potentially real outcomes in nicotine-dependent and nondependent samples. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2011;19(4):263–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024141 .
doi: 10.1037/a0024141
pubmed: 21707190
Thomas JJ, Eddy KT. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: children, adolescents, & adults. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.
Tchanturia K, Campbell IC, Morris R, Treasure J. Neuropsychological studies in anorexia nervosa. Int J Eat Disord. 2005;37(Suppl):S72–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20119 .
doi: 10.1002/eat.20119
pubmed: 15852325
Tchanturia K, Davies H, Roberts M, Harrison A, Nakazato M, Schmidt U, Morris R. Poor cognitive flexibility in eating disorders: examining the evidence using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(1): e28331.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028331
pubmed: 22253689
pmcid: 3257222
Garner DM, Bemis KM. A cognitive-behavioral approach to anorexia nervosa. Cogn Ther Res. 1982;6:123–50.
doi: 10.1007/BF01183887
Egbert A, Hunt RA, Williams K, Burke NL, Jennings MK. Reporting racial and ethnic diversity in eating disorder research over the past 20 years. Int J Eat Disord. 2021;55:455–62. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ys6xz .
doi: 10.31234/osf.io/ys6xz
Goel NJ, Jennings Mathis K, Egbert AH, Petterway F, Breithaupt L, Eddy KT, Franko DL, Graham AK. Accountability in promoting representation of historically marginalized racial and ethnic populations in the eating disorders field: a call to action. Int J Eat Disord. 2022;55(4):463–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23682 .
doi: 10.1002/eat.23682
pubmed: 35092322
pmcid: 9305786
Ishii K, Eisen C, Hitokoto H. The effects of social status and culture on delay discounting. Jpn Psychol Res. 2017;59(3):230–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12154 .
doi: 10.1111/jpr.12154
Kim B, Sung YS, McClure SM. The neural basis of cultural differences in delay discounting. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci. 2012;367(1589):650–6. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0292 .
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0292
Lao J, Vizioli L, Caldara R. Culture modulates the temporal dynamics of global/local processing. Cult Brain. 2013;1(2–4):158–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40167-013-0012-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s40167-013-0012-2
Oishi S, Jaswal VK, Lillard AS, Mizokawa A, Hitokoto H, Tsutsui Y. Cultural variations in global versus local processing: a developmental perspective. Dev Psychol. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038272.supp .
doi: 10.1037/a0038272.supp
pubmed: 25365123