CClinicalTrials.gg
Active, not recruitingNCT02977403Updated Aug 20, 2024Results posted

Mobile Attention Retraining in Overweight Female Adolescents

An interventional study of Attention Bias Retraining and Sham Comparator: AB Control in Obesity, Overweight and Binge Eating, sponsored by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Active, not recruiting at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 12 Years to 21 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-08-20.

Sponsored by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
82
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
12 Years to 21 Years
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Background:

People are constantly exposed to unhealthy foods. Some studies of adults show that training attention away from unhealthy foods might reduce overeating. Researchers want to see what happens in the brain when teens train their attention away from food through a program on a smartphone.

Objective:

To study the relationship between eating patterns, body weight, and how the brain reacts to different images.

Eligibility:

Right-handed females ages 12-17 who are overweight (Body Mass Index at or above the 85th percentile for age).

Design:

Participants will have 6 visits over about 8 months.

Visit 1: participants will be screened with:

Height, weight, blood pressure, and waist size measurements

Medical history

Physical exam

Urine sample

DXA scan. Participants will lie on a table while a very small dose of x-rays passes through the body.

Questions about their general health, social and psychological functioning, and eating habits

Parents or guardians of minor participants will answer questions about their child s functioning and demographic data.

Before visits 2-6, participants will not eat or drink for about 12 hours. These visits will include some or all of these procedures:

Blood drawn

MRI scan. Participants will lie on a stretcher that slides in and out of a metal cylinder in a strong magnetic field. A device will be placed over the head.

Meals provided. Participants will fill out rating forms.

Simple thinking tasks

A cone containing magnetic field detectors placed onto the head

Medical history

Physical exam

Urine sample

Participants will be assigned to a 2-week smartphone program that involves looking at pictures. Participants will complete short tasks and answer some questions about their eating habits and mood on the smartphone.

Read the detailed description

Over 30% of adolescents are overweight and 20% are obese, but the mechanisms that produce excessive weight gain in youth remain incompletely elucidated. Some overweight youth appear to have an attention bias (AB: a tendency to attend selectively to stimuli that have acquired salience or meaning) toward highly palatable food that may lead to overeating. AB involves distinct cognitive processes, (1) unconscious reactions (UCR), reflecting initial attention capture evoked by salient stimuli, and (2) continued attention deployment (AD) to stimuli relevant to current goals. These rapidly evolving processes are associated with unique neurocircuitry best measured using high spatial resolution and temporal sensitivity. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a novel neuroimaging technology that has both excellent temporal and good spatial resolution, thus is uniquely and ideally suited to study neurocognitive mechanisms of AB. Reducing AB to palatable foods may help some overweight youth curb their consumption of energy-dense options. Attention retraining (AR) programs can be used to reduce AB and have been effective in reducing AB to unhealthy food in adults. Although most AR studies involve computers in the laboratory, using smartphones in the natural environment may be a particularly effective method to deliver AR to adolescents and measure AB using ecological momentary assessment. The first aim of the proposed study is to investigate, using MEG, the impact of a 2-week smartphone AR program on neural responses to food cues in overweight adolescent (12-17 y/o) girls with and without loss of control (LOC) eating, defined as a subjective experience of a lack of control over what or how much one is eating. LOC is a distinct eating behavior phenotype in youth that is a risk factor for excess weight gain and disordered eating, and is much more prevalent among girls (vs. boys). Overweight youth who report LOC may be particularly susceptible to AB. Additionally, adults with LOC demonstrate AB toward socially threatening cues, such as angry or disapproving faces, and the AB to social threat may be relevant to the relationship between AB to food and overweight. The second goal is to examine the effect of the 2-week AR program on AB, food intake, and body composition. An exploratory aim is to examine whether AB to socially threatening cues, moderates the effects of this novel intervention on AB to food cues, food intake, and body composition. The proposed study is innovative because no study to date has examined neurocircuitry of ABs to food using MEG, nor examined the impact of AR delivered in the natural environment on neurocircuitry of AB in a group of youth prone to AB. These studies may help further characterize phenomenology of distinct obesity subtypes and may potentially identify an approach that could prevent undue weight gain in adolescent girls at risk for obesity.

02

Conditions studied

  • Obesity
  • Overweight
  • Binge Eating
  • Healthy Volunteers

Keywords

  • Binge Eating
  • Eating Behavior
  • Children
  • Magnetoencephalography
  • Loss of Control
03

In context

Overweight

3,670 studies on the registry are indexed under Overweight; 849 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 82 is above the median of 73 across 3,175 interventional studies indexed under Overweight.

Browse Overweight studies →

Lead sponsor

Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) is the lead sponsor of 416 studies on the registry; 25 are open to participants now.

Of its 13 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 10 (77%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
12 Years to 21 Years
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Volunteers will qualify if they meet the following criteria:

  1. Age between 12 and 17 years (at the start of the study).
  2. Female sex.
  3. BMI at or above the 85th percentile for age and sex according to the Centers for Disease Control US Standards (101).
  4. Right handedness.

    LOC sample only:

  5. Greater than or equal to 1 episodes of LOC eating during the past month prior to assessment, assessed using a clinical diagnostic interview for eating disorders.

    No-LOC sample only:

  6. No episodes of LOC eating during the past month prior to assessment, assessed using a clinical diagnostic interview for eating disorders.

Exclusion criteria

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

Individuals will be excluded (and provided treatment referrals as needed) for the following reasons:

  1. An obesity-related health comorbidity requiring medical treatment, such as hypertension (defined by age-, sex-, and height-specific standards) or fasting hyperglycemia consistent with diabetes.
  2. Presence of other major illnesses: renal, hepatic, gastrointestinal, most endocrinologic (e.g., Cushing syndrome, untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism), hematological problems or pulmonary disorders (other than asthma not requiring continuous medication). Nonserious

    medical illnesses, such as seasonal allergies, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

  3. Regular use of any medication known to affect body weight or eating behavior (e.g., stimulants prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD). Medication use for non-serious conditions (e.g., acne) will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  4. Current pregnancy or a history of pregnancy.
  5. A significant reduction in weight during the past three months, for any reason, exceeding 5% of body weight.
  6. Presence in the child of any significant, full-threshold psychiatric disorder based on DSM criteria (102), such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcohol or substance abuse, anorexia or bulimia nervosa, or any other disorder that, in the opinion of the investigators, would impede competence or compliance or possibly hinder completion of the study. These individuals will not be permitted to enroll in the current study and will be referred for treatment. Individuals who present with other psychiatric disorders, including subthreshold psychiatric disorders, will be permitted to enroll in the study. If, based on the opinion of the investigators, a participant requires treatment for his/her psychiatric symptoms, the individual will be referred for treatment. Participants who develop any psychiatric disorder or significant psychiatric symptoms at any follow-up assessment during the study will be excluded and be provided with treatment referrals.
  7. Current and regular substance use, including the use of alcohol and/or tobacco products (including e-cigarettes).
  8. A history of significant or recent brain injury that may considerably influence performance (i.e., any history of loss of consciousness greater than or equal to 30 minutes associated with a head injury, any history of memory loss or hospitalization associated with a head injury, or greater than or equal to 2 concussions within last year).
  9. Current involvement in a weight loss program, participating in psychotherapy aimed at weight loss or treatment of eating behavior (e.g., binge eating).
  10. All parents/guardians will be asked to indicate if their child has any food allergies. To be conservative, children who report allergies to gluten, nuts, dairy, fruit, or any other item in the array, will be excluded from the test meal portion of the study.
  11. A condition under which MEG is contradicted (e.g., metal in the body, pregnancy, claustrophobia, history of significant neurological insult or injury).
  12. Non-English speaking participants will be excluded from the study as they may be unable to complete questionnaires and follow the instructions which are only provided in English.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
82 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    AB Retraining

    Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location.

    Behavioral: Attention Bias Retraining

  • Sham comparator
    Control sham

    Sham Comparator program - the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location

    Behavioral: Sham Comparator: AB Control

Interventions

  • BehavioralAttention Bias Retraining

    Attention retraining program on smartphone where the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location.

  • BehavioralSham Comparator: AB Control

    Sham Comparator "training" where the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food pictures. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time

    AB was obtained for each stimulus pairing (High-Palatability Food \[HPF\] minus Non-Food \[NF\] image, Low-Palatability Food \[LPF\] minus NF image, HPF minus LPF image). Trials where the probe appeared behind the more food-salient cue (e.g., a HPF image, or LPF vs NF image) were considered congruent trials. Trials where the probe appeared behind the less salient cue (e.g., NF image, or LPF image when the other image was a HPF image) were considered incongruent trials. The average reaction time during incongruent trials was subtracted from reaction time during during congruent trials. Positive scores represent a quicker reaction time for (and bias towards) the more palatable stimulus, and negative scores represent a slower reaction time for (and bias away from) the more palatable stimulus. A difference score of 0 represents no bias towards or away from the more palatable stimulus. Only trials with correct responses for the direction of the probe were included in computations.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  2. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power at the caudate left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). Oscillatory power was normalized as per NeuroImage 39 (2008) pp 1788-1802, by estimating noise power as ρθ = WθTΣWθ (where Wθ is a (M × 1) column vector of weighting parameters that are tuned specifically to the location and orientation represented by θ, Σ represents the noise covariance matrix and ρθ is the beamformer-projected sensor noise power at the location and orientation θ). Within each stimuli-pairing and attention phase, oscillatory power during the incongruent trials was divided by oscillatory power during the congruent trials, then log transformed. Given a ratio was used, the oscillator power outcomes are unitless. Change in power (post-intervention minus pre-intervention) was calculated. Positive changes represent an increase in oscillatory power from pre- to post intervention.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  3. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  4. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  5. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  6. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  7. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  8. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  9. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  10. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  11. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  12. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Neural activity during a food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  13. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  14. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  15. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  16. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  17. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  18. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  19. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  20. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  21. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  22. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  23. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  24. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  25. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  26. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  27. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  28. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the the caudate left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  29. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  30. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  31. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  32. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  33. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  34. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  35. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  36. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  37. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  38. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  39. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  40. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  41. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  42. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  43. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  44. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  45. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  46. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  47. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  48. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  49. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  50. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  51. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  52. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

  53. Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

    Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

    Time frame: 2-weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes

    Frequency of self-reported loss-of-control eating episodes measured via the Eating Disorder Examination Interview at the baseline visit and post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit).

    Time frame: 2-weeks

07

Results

Posted Aug 20, 2024
Limitations and caveats
The primary study limitation was the small sample size and difficulties with recruitment. Other limitations include a large percentage of missing MEG data. Girls who provided complete data were, on average, older than participants who had missing data. Lastly, visual probe tasks have been shown to have relatively poor psychometric reliability.

Participant flow

Participants were recruited from 2/10/2017 to 4/27/2023 from the local community by advertisements sent by mail and posted flyers.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneAB ControlAB Retraining
Started3632
Completed2929
Not completed73

Outcome measures

PrimaryChanges in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time

AB was obtained for each stimulus pairing (High-Palatability Food \[HPF\] minus Non-Food \[NF\] image, Low-Palatability Food \[LPF\] minus NF image, HPF minus LPF image). Trials where the probe appeared behind the more food-salient cue (e.g., a HPF image, or LPF vs NF image) were considered congruent trials. Trials where the probe appeared behind the less salient cue (e.g., NF image, or LPF image when the other image was a HPF image) were considered incongruent trials. The average reaction time during incongruent trials was subtracted from reaction time during during congruent trials. Positive scores represent a quicker reaction time for (and bias towards) the more palatable stimulus, and negative scores represent a slower reaction time for (and bias away from) the more palatable stimulus. A difference score of 0 represents no bias towards or away from the more palatable stimulus. Only trials with correct responses for the direction of the probe were included in computations.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Change in milliseconds
Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time
Change in millisecondsAB RetrainingControl Sham
Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time1.85 (-8.44 to 12.13)4.27 (-6.25 to 14.80)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Retraining vs Control Sham · Beta coefficient: -1.948 · 95% CI -20.790 to 16.894To examine changes in AB, change scores were computed (post-pre = delta). Positive scores represent an increase in AB from pre- to post- intervention. Negative ∆reaction time scores represent a decrease in AB from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Retraining vs Control Sham · Beta coefficient: -0.952 · 95% CI -35.280 to 33.377
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power at the caudate left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). Oscillatory power was normalized as per NeuroImage 39 (2008) pp 1788-1802, by estimating noise power as ρθ = WθTΣWθ (where Wθ is a (M × 1) column vector of weighting parameters that are tuned specifically to the location and orientation represented by θ, Σ represents the noise covariance matrix and ρθ is the beamformer-projected sensor noise power at the location and orientation θ). Within each stimuli-pairing and attention phase, oscillatory power during the incongruent trials was divided by oscillatory power during the congruent trials, then log transformed. Given a ratio was used, the oscillator power outcomes are unitless. Change in power (post-intervention minus pre-intervention) was calculated. Positive changes represent an increase in oscillatory power from pre- to post intervention.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.010 (-0.027 to 0.048).021 (-0.014 to 0.056)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficent: 0.047 · 95% CI -0.025 to 0.119To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.134 · 95% CI -0.288 to 0.019
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.032 (-0.011 to 0.075)0.023 (-0.017 to 0.063)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficent: -0.002 · 95% CI -0.085 to 0.082To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post-intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.053 · 95% CI -0.177 to 0.071
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.007 (-0.055 to 0.041)0.038 (-0.006 to 0.083)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.080 · 95% CI -0.022 to 0.182To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.018 · 95% CI -0.139 to 0.103
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.028 (-0.022 to 0.078)0.009 (-0.037 to 0.056)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.013 · 95% CI -0.086 to 0.113To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.035 · 95% CI -0.179 to 0.109
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.013 (-0.056 to 0.030)0.046 (0.006 to 0.086)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.083 · 95% CI -0.001 to 0.167To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.069 · 95% CI -0.201 to 0.063
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.017 (-0.029 to 0.063)0.020 (-0.022 to 0.063)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.031 · 95% CI -0.059 to 0.121To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.002 · 95% CI -0.157 to 0.152
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.035 (-0.009 to 0.078)-0.041 (-0.081 to -0.001)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.042 · 95% CI -0.149 to 0.065To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.068 · 95% CI -0.266 to 0.131
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.053 (0.011 to 0.095)0.002 (-0.037 to 0.041)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.034 · 95% CI -0.122 to 0.053To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.070 · 95% CI -0.233 to 0.092
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.012 (-0.030 to 0.055)0.012 (-0.027 to 0.051)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.042 · 95% CI -0.041 to 0.126To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.085 · 95% CI -0.252 to 0.082
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.002 (-0.034 to 0.039)-0.024 (-0.058 to 0.010)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.021 · 95% CI -0.060 to 0.102To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.071 · 95% CI -0.260 to 0.119
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Neural activity during a food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.010 (-0.050 to 0.030)0.026 (-0.011 to 0.063)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.107 · 95% CI 0.030 to 0.185To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.197 · 95% CI -0.346 to -0.047
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.026 (-0.065 to 0.014)-0.001 (-0.037 to 0.036)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.092 · 95% CI 0.010 to 0.175To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.049 · 95% CI -0.204 to 0.107
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.010 (-0.048 to 0.029)0.018 (-0.017 to 0.054)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.046 · 95% CI -0.032 to 0.123To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.007 · 95% CI -0.163 to 0.177
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.018 (-0.053 to 0.018)-0.011 (-0.044 to 0.022)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.041 · 95% CI -0.03 to 0.112To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.014 · 95% CI -0.168 to 0.140
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.026 (-0.006 to 0.058)0.020 (-0.010 to 0.049)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.037 · 95% CI -0.125 to 0.052To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.034 · 95% CI -0.196 to 0.129
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.027 (-0.010 to 0.065)0.031 (-0.003 to 0.066)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.001 · 95% CI -0.091 to 0.093To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.143 · 95% CI -0.286 to 0.001
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.006 (-0.040 to 0.029)0.033 (0.001 to 0.066)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.065 · 95% CI -0.001 to 0.132To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.095 · 95% CI -0.246 to 0.055
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.014 (-0.018 to 0.046)0.008 (-0.021 to 0.038)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.023 · 95% CI -0.055 to 0.101To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.020 · 95% CI -0.178 to 0.137
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.021 (-0.004 to 0.046)-0.013 (-0.036 to 0.010)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.032 · 95% CI -0.116 to 0.051To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.060 · 95% CI -0.104 to 0.223
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.041 (0.017 to 0.064)0.019 (-0.002 to 0.041)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.012 · 95% CI -0.078 to 0.053To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.064 · 95% CI -0.248 to 0.120
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.010 (-0.048 to 0.029)0.069 (0.034 to 0.105)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.089 · 95% CI 0.004 to 0.174To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.021 · 95% CI -0.159 to 0.201
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.037 (-0.007 to 0.080)0.031 (-0.009 to 0.071)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.016 · 95% CI -0.113 to 0.081To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.072 · 95% CI -0.206 to 0.062
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.019 (-0.060 to 0.023)0.019 (-0.019 to 0.058)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.129 · 95% CI 0.049 to 0.209To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.181 · 95% CI -0.330 to -0.033
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.011 (-0.053 to 0.030)0.016 (-0.023 to 0.055)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.126 · 95% CI 0.045 to 0.207To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.056 · 95% CI -0.223 to 0.112
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)-0.015 (-0.059 to 0.029)0.064 (0.024 to 0.105)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.115 · 95% CI 0.027 to 0.203To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.058 · 95% CI -0.203 to 0.087
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)0.022 (-0.020 to 0.063)0.016 (-0.023 to 0.054)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.037 · 95% CI -0.053 to 0.127To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.085 · 95% CI -0.240 to 0.069
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the the caudate left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.012 (-0.025 to 0.049)-0.052 (-0.086 to -0.017)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.021 · 95% CI -0.092 to 0.050To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.096 · 95% CI -0.249 to 0.056
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.030 (-0.013 to 0.073)-0.031 (-0.070 to 0.009)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.013 · 95% CI -0.095 to 0.069To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.078 · 95% CI -0.227 to 0.071
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)-0.011 (-0.058 to 0.036)-0.051 (-0.095 to -0.008)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.005 · 95% CI -0.103 to 0.092To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.032 · 95% CI -0.173 to 0.110
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.037 (-0.009 to 0.084)-0.026 (-0.069 to 0.017)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.020 · 95% CI -0.069 to 0.109To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.088 · 95% CI -0.252 to 0.077
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.0005 (-0.040 to 0.041)-0.062 (-0.100 to -0.025)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.010 · 95% CI -0.099 to 0.080To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.155 · 95% CI -0.294 to -0.017
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.018 (-0.024 to 0.061)-0.031 (-0.070 to 0.009)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.013 · 95% CI -0.069 to 0.095To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.085 · 95% CI -0.216 to 0.047
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.026 (-0.012 to 0.064)-0.069 (-0.104 to -0.033)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.041 · 95% CI -0.123 to 0.041To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.096 · 95% CI -0.213 to 0.021
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.058 (0.011 to 0.105)-0.028 (-0.072 to 0.016)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.038 · 95% CI -0.142 to 0.066To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.096 · 95% CI -0.290 to 0.097
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)-0.005 (-0.048 to 0.038)-0.030 (-0.070 to 0.010)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.023 · 95% CI -0.105 to 0.059To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.124 · 95% CI -0.277 to 0.029
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.032 (-0.010 to 0.074)-0.012 (-0.051 to 0.027)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.057 · 95% CI -0.140 to 0.027To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.161 · 95% CI -0.302 to -0.020
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.021 (-0.022 to 0.063)-0.062 (-0.102 to -0.023)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.0002 · 95% CI -0.091 to 0.091To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.004 · 95% CI -0.157 to 0.149
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.012 (-0.029 to 0.052)0.002 (-0.035 to 0.040)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.010 · 95% CI -0.092 to 0.071To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.029 · 95% CI -0.126 to 0.183
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.018 (-0.023 to 0.058)-0.038 (-0.076 to -0.001)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.013 · 95% CI -0.101 to 0.076To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.106 · 95% CI -0.273 to 0.060
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.041 (0.001 to 0.080)-0.009 (-0.046 to 0.028)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.033 · 95% CI -0.110 to 0.043To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.166 · 95% CI -0.335 to 0.003
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.016 (-0.024 to 0.056)-0.012 (-0.049 to 0.025)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.011 · 95% CI -0.069 to 0.091To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.167 · 95% CI -0.332 to -0.002
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.005 (-0.041 to 0.050)0.006 (-0.036 to 0.048)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.054 · 95% CI -0.037 to 0.146To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.019 · 95% CI -0.127 to 0.090
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.015 (-0.017 to 0.047)-0.031 (-0.061 to -0.002)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.002 · 95% CI -0.061 to 0.065To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.086 · 95% CI -0.215 to 0.042
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.010 (-0.024 to 0.044)-0.006 (-0.037 to 0.026)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.032 · 95% CI -0.05 to 0.115To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.095 · 95% CI -0.248 to 0.058
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.004 (-0.025 to 0.033)-0.022 (-0.049 to 0.005)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.016 · 95% CI -0.075 to 0.042To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.025 · 95% CI -0.130 to 0.180
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.023 (-0.009 to 0.055)0.010 (-0.020 to 0.039)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.030 · 95% CI -0.039 to 0.099
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.143 · 95% CI -0.335 to 0.049
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.043 (0.003 to 0.082)-0.054 (-0.09 to -0.017)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.016 · 95% CI -0.097 to 0.066To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.162 · 95% CI -0.314 to -0.01
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.001 (-0.037 to 0.039)-0.018 (-0.053 to 0.017)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.053 · 95% CI -0.051 to 0.156To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.070 · 95% CI -0.251 to 0.111
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.013 (-0.026 to 0.053)-0.052 (-0.089 to -0.016)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.015 · 95% CI -0.061 to 0.091To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.108 · 95% CI -0.260 to 0.044
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)-0.027 (-0.067 to 0.012)0.023 (-0.014 to 0.060)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.036 · 95% CI -0.047 to 0.119To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.106 · 95% CI -0.276 to 0.064
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)0.023 (-0.015 to 0.062)-0.071 (-0.107 to -0.036)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.017 · 95% CI -0.092 to 0.057To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.002 · 95% CI -0.150 to 0.153
PrimaryChange in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)

Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Least squares mean · unitless
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
unitlessAB ControlAB Retraining
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)-0.009 (-0.055 to 0.037)0.013 (-0.030 to 0.056)
Statistical analysis
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: 0.070 · 95% CI -0.019 to 0.159To examine changes in oscillatory power, change scores were computed (post-pre=delta). Positive scores represent an increase from pre- to post- intervention. Negative scores represent a decrease from pre- to post- intervention.
  • AB Control vs AB Retraining · Beta coefficient: -0.095 · 95% CI -0.260 to 0.070
SecondaryFrequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes

Frequency of self-reported loss-of-control eating episodes measured via the Eating Disorder Examination Interview at the baseline visit and post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit).

Time frame:
2-weeks
Reported as:
Mean · eating episode (count)
Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes
eating episode (count)AB RetrainingControl Sham
Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes.731 ± 2.3189.827 ± 1.968
Statistical analysis
  • AB Retraining vs Control Sham · Generalized estimation equations · p = 0.256 · Beta coefficient: -0.8707Reported variable is a condition by time (pre or post-intervention) interaction term. The model included a Poisson distribution, log link function, exchangeable covariance matrix and was adjusted for age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity.

Adverse events

Collected over 2 weeks. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
AB Retraining0/32 (0%)0/32 (0%)4/32 (12.5%)
Control Sham0/36 (0%)0/36 (0%)2/36 (5.6%)
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventAB RetrainingControl Sham
NauseaGastrointestinal disorders3/320/36
HeadacheMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders1/321/36
Neck PainMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/321/36

Baseline characteristics

68 were randomized.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Mean14.9 ± 1.715.0 ± 1.614.9 ± 1.6
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Female363268
Male000
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Hispanic or Latino639
Not Hispanic or Latino272754
Unknown or Not Reported325
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian101
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American191837
White14822
More than one race257
Unknown or Not Reported011
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
United States363268
Fat Mass
Fat Mass(Kg)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Mean33.6 ± 11.333.8 ± 10.433.7 ± 10.8
Body Mass Index Z-score
Body Mass Index Z-score(Z-score)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Mean1.88 ± 0.641.80 ± 0.551.84 ± 0.60
Recent Loss Of Control Eating
Recent Loss Of Control Eating(Participants)AB ControlAB RetrainingTotal
Count of participants11920
08

Study locations

1 site
  • National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
    Bethesda, Maryland 20892, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Shank LM, Tanofsky-Kraff M, Nelson EE, Shomaker LB, Ranzenhofer LM, Hannallah LM, Field SE, Vannucci A, Bongiorno DM, Brady SM, Condarco T, Demidowich A, Kelly NR, Cassidy O, Simmons WK, Engel SG, Pine DS, Yanovski JA. Attentional bias to food cues in youth with loss of control eating. Appetite. 2015 Apr;87:68-75. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.11.027. Epub 2014 Nov 27. PubMed 25435490 ↗
  • Waters AM, Lipp OV, Spence SH. Attentional bias toward fear-related stimuli: an investigation with nonselected children and adults and children with anxiety disorders. J Exp Child Psychol. 2004 Dec;89(4):320-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2004.06.003. PubMed 15560877 ↗
  • Jarcho JM, Tanofsky-Kraff M, Nelson EE, Engel SG, Vannucci A, Field SE, Romer AL, Hannallah L, Brady SM, Demidowich AP, Shomaker LB, Courville AB, Pine DS, Yanovski JA. Neural activation during anticipated peer evaluation and laboratory meal intake in overweight girls with and without loss of control eating. Neuroimage. 2015 Mar;108:343-53. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.054. Epub 2014 Dec 27. PubMed 25550068 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Jul 14, 2022

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — .All IPD that underlie results in a publication will be shared.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Icf

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 20, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02977403
Lead sponsor
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Nov 30, 2016
Start date
Feb 10, 2017
Primary completion
Jun 8, 2023
Completion
Oct 31, 2024 (estimated)
Results posted
Aug 20, 2024
Last update
Aug 20, 2024

Study contacts

Jack A Yanovski, M.D.
principal investigator · Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is active, not recruiting, as verified in Dec 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion