Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17-CH-0014 | Other Identifier | NIH Clinical Center |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Experimental | Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. |
|
| Control sham | Sham Comparator | Sham Comparator program - the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attention Bias Retraining | Behavioral | Attention retraining program on smartphone where the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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). | 2-weeks |
Not provided
Volunteers will qualify if they meet the following criteria:
Age between 12 and 17 years (at the start of the study).
Female sex.
BMI at or above the 85th percentile for age and sex according to the Centers for Disease Control US Standards (101).
Right handedness.
LOC sample only:
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:
No episodes of LOC eating during the past month prior to assessment, assessed using a clinical diagnostic interview for eating disorders.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA:
Individuals will be excluded (and provided treatment referrals as needed) for the following reasons:
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.
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.
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.
Current pregnancy or a history of pregnancy.
A significant reduction in weight during the past three months, for any reason, exceeding 5% of body weight.
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.
Current and regular substance use, including the use of alcohol and/or tobacco products (including e-cigarettes).
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).
Current involvement in a weight loss program, participating in psychotherapy aimed at weight loss or treatment of eating behavior (e.g., binge eating).
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.
A condition under which MEG is contradicted (e.g., metal in the body, pregnancy, claustrophobia, history of significant neurological insult or injury).
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jack A Yanovski, M.D. | Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Institutes of Health Clinical Center | Bethesda | Maryland | 20892 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25435490 | Background | 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. | |
| 15560877 |
| Label | URL |
|---|---|
| NIH Clinical Center Detailed Web Page | View source |
Not provided
.All IPD that underlie results in a publication will be shared.
NIH subject data will become available starting 6 months after publication of a results paper and will be available from the NIH site for 2 years.
NIH data with personal identifiers removed will be shared upon reasonable request to the PI, who will review requests. A data sharing agreement will be required to be negotiated with NICHD before sharing takes place.
Not provided
Not provided
Participants were recruited from 2/10/2017 to 4/27/2023 from the local community by advertisements sent by mail and posted flyers.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | AB Control | Control condition - the probe is equally likely to replace the food picture and the neutral picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location, and no training of attention should occur. Attention 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. |
| FG001 | AB Retraining | Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. Attention 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. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
68 were randomized.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | AB Control | Control condition - the probe is equally likely to replace the food picture and the neutral picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location, and no training of attention should occur. Attention 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. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | 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. | Computer failures led to missing data for many participants. There were interruptions in data recording during magnetoencephalography sessions that were not predictable due to equipment failures. | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | Change in milliseconds | 2-weeks |
2 weeks
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | AB Retraining | Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. Attention 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. |
Not provided
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headache | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | CTCAE (4.0) | Non-systematic Assessment | Grade 1, During magnetoencephalography. MedDRA 10019211 |
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.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dr. Jack Yanovski | Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Health, NIH | 301-496-0858 | jy15i@nih.gov |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Jul 14, 2022 | Apr 18, 2024 | Prot_SAP_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009765 | Obesity |
| D050177 | Overweight |
| D002032 | Bulimia |
| D005247 | Feeding Behavior |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D044343 | Overnutrition |
| D009748 | Nutrition Disorders |
| D009750 | Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases |
| D001835 | Body Weight |
Not provided
Not provided
Overweight youth with loss of control over eating randomized to intervention or control groups Overweight youth without loss of control over eating randomized to intervention or control groups
Not provided
Not provided
Assignment to intervention or control made by a person who has no contact with study subjects to place the appropriate program on the phone used by the subject. Blind was maintained until all subjects had completed all assessments for the randomized phase.
| Sham Comparator: AB Control | Behavioral | Sham Comparator "training" where the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food pictures. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location |
|
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. |
| 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. | 2-weeks |
| 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. |
| 25550068 | Background | 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. |
| BG001 | AB Retraining | Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. Attention 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. |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| years |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| Fat Mass | Fat mass, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry iDXA, Lunar. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Kg |
|
| Body Mass Index Z-score | Body Mass Index (BMI) Z-score for age and sex, calculated according to the US Centers for Disease Control recommended approach. Z-scores represent the number of standard deviations of a value from the mean. BMI Z-scores of 0 represent the mean BMI for sex and age, above 0 represent above-average BMI for sex and age, and below 0 represent below-average BMI for sex and age. A BMI Z-score between 1.04 and 1.64 indicates overweight. A BMI Z-score greater than 1.64 indicates obesity. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Z-score |
|
| Recent Loss Of Control Eating | Determined through the Eating Disorder Examination semi-structured interview. Number of participants reporting loss of control over their eating within the past 1 month. | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| OG000 | AB Retraining | Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. Attention 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. |
| OG001 | Control Sham | Sham Comparator program - the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location Sham 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 |
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Primary | 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. | Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis | Posted | Least Squares Mean | 95% Confidence Interval | unitless | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| Secondary | 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). | Some subjects withdrew before completion of the post-smartphone visit. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | eating episode (count) | 2-weeks |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 32 |
| 0 |
| 32 |
| 4 |
| 32 |
| EG001 | Control Sham | Sham Comparator program - the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location Sham 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 | 0 | 36 | 0 | 36 | 2 | 36 |
|
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | CTCAE (4.0) | Non-systematic Assessment | Grade 1, MedDRA 10028813 |
|
| Neck Pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | CTCAE (4.0) | Non-systematic Assessment | Grade 1, MedDRA 10028836 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| D012816 |
| Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
| D006963 | Hyperphagia |
| D012817 | Signs and Symptoms, Digestive |
| D001522 | Behavior, Animal |
| D001519 | Behavior |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.134 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.288 | 0.019 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass and height, race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.053 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.177 | 0.071 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.018 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.139 | 0.103 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.035 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.179 | 0.109 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.069 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.201 | 0.063 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.002 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.157 | 0.152 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.068 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.266 | 0.131 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.070 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.233 | 0.092 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.085 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.252 | 0.082 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.071 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.260 | 0.119 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.197 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.346 | -0.047 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.049 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.204 | 0.107 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.007 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.163 | 0.177 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.014 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.168 | 0.140 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.034 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.196 | 0.129 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.143 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.286 | 0.001 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.095 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.246 | 0.055 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.020 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.178 | 0.137 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.060 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.104 | 0.223 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.064 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.248 | 0.120 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.021 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.159 | 0.201 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.072 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.206 | 0.062 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.181 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.330 | -0.033 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.056 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.223 | 0.112 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.058 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.203 | 0.087 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.085 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.240 | 0.069 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.096 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.249 | 0.056 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.078 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.227 | 0.071 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.032 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.173 | 0.110 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.088 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.252 | 0.077 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Other |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.155 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.294 | -0.017 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.085 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.216 | 0.047 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.096 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.213 | 0.021 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.096 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.290 | 0.097 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.124 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.277 | 0.029 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.161 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.302 | -0.020 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.004 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.157 | 0.149 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.029 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.126 | 0.183 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.106 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.273 | 0.060 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.166 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.335 | 0.003 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.167 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.332 | -0.002 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.019 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.127 | 0.090 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.086 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.215 | 0.042 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.095 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.248 | 0.058 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.025 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.130 | 0.180 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.143 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.335 | 0.049 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.162 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.314 | -0.01 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.070 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.251 | 0.111 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.108 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.260 | 0.044 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.106 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.276 | 0.064 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | 0.002 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.150 | 0.153 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |
Change scores were computed (post-intervention - pre-intervention = delta) for oscillatory power. A linear mixed model was run with change scores as the dependent variable. Between-subject factors were condition, recent LOC-eating (0=absent, 1=present), and a condition by LOC-eating interaction term. Oscillatory power analyses were nested within subject. Models included a random intercept and were adjusted for stimuli pairing type, age, fat mass, height, and race and ethnicity. |
| Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. | beta coefficient | -0.095 | 2-Sided | 95 | -0.260 | 0.070 | Superiority | See Statistical Analysis 1 for details. No p-values supplied, only confidence intervals and Cohen's d |
| Superiority |