Habituation as a determinant of human food intake

Abstract

Research has shown that animals and humans habituate on a variety of behavioral and physiological responses to repeated presentations of food cues, and habituation is related to amount of food consumed and cessation of eating. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of experimental paradigms used to study habituation, integrate a theoretical approach to habituation to food based on memory and associative conditioning models, and review research on factors that influence habituation. Individual differences in habituation as they relate to obesity and eating disorders are reviewed, along with research on how individual differences in memory can influence habituation. Other associative conditioning approaches to ingestive behavior are reviewed, as well as how habituation provides novel approaches to preventing or treating obesity. Finally, new directions for habituation research are presented. Habituation provides a novel theoretical framework from which to understand factors that regulate ingestive behavior.

Figure 1

Salivation (mean ± SEM) for subjects who received lemon or lime juice as the habituating stimulus in trials 1–10, the other juice as the dishabituator in trial 11, and presentation of the habituating stimulus in trial 12. Adapted from (Epstein et al., 1992). Copyright 1992 by Pergamon Press. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 2

Salivation (mean ± SEM) for subjects who received lemon juice as the habituating stimulus in trials 1–10, bitter chocolate as the dishabituator in trial 11, and presentation of the habituating stimulus in trial 12. Control subjects received 12 trials of lemon juice. Adapted from (Epstein et al., 1992). Copyright 1992 by Pergamon Press. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 3

Salivation (left graphs, mean ± SEM) and motivation (right graphs, mean ± SEM) for subjects who were presented cheeseburgers followed by apple pie as the new food. The introduction of the new food was delayed one trial for Group 2 in relationship to Group 1 test whether the recovery of responding occurred after presentation of the new food. Adapted from (Epstein et al., 2003). Copyright 2003 by Elsevier Ltd. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 4

Motivated responding (mean ± SEM) for a variety of either low or high energy dense foods or the same favorite low or high energy dense food. Adapted from (Temple et al., 2008a). Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 5

Salivation (mean ± SEM) for subjects who were received lemon juice with or without presentation of a video game distractor between trials. For subjects who were not presented the distractor between trials, the distractor was presented after trial 11, and recovery of salivation was observed. Adapted from (Epstein et al., 1992). Copyright 1992 by Pergamon Press. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 6

Changes (mean ± SEM) in salivation from baseline for participants in the controlled search, automatic search and no task groups. Reprinted from (Epstein et al., 2005). Copyright 2005 by Elsevier Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 7

Activation of a memory node in SOP theory. (A) When the stimulus is presented, the node goes into A!, decays to A2, and then becomes inactive again. (B) Activation of the node actually depends on the proportion of elements within the node that individually go from A1, to A2, and then inactive. Some elements decay more quickly than others; activation of the node really reflects the proportion of elements in A! or A2 at any given time. Reprinted from (Bouton, 2007). Copyright 2007 by Sinauer Aoociates, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 8

Changes (mean ± SEM) in salivation for participants in the continuous audio group and no audio group. Reprinted from (Epstein et al., 2005). Copyright 2005 by Elsevier Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 9

Changes in salivation, subjective arousal and heart rate (mean ± SEM) after presentation of the dishabituators for subjects in the control (REST), video game (LO) and video game plus mental arithmetic (HI) conditions. Reprinted from (Epstein, Mitchell et al., 1993). Copyright 1993 by Pergamon Press Ltd. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 10

The mean ± SEM number of responses made on each trial for cheeseburger trials (1–10) and French fries (trials 11–13) in children who are below the 85^th BMI percentile (open circles) or at or above the 85^th BMI percentile (filled circles). Reprinted from (Temple, Giacomelli, Roemmich et al., 2007). Copyright 2007 by Elsevier Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Figure 11

Salivary responses to lemon yogurt in obese and nonobese subjects across five blocks of two trials. Reprinted from (Epstein et al., 1996). Copyright 1996 by the American Psychosomatic Society. Reprinted by permission.