Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness

Open access
Jones, Andrew, Di Lemma, Lisa C.G., Robinson, Eric, Christiansen, Paul, Nolan, Sarah, Tudur-Smith, Catrin, Field, Matt·2016·Appetite

Abstract

Inhibitory control training (ICT) is a novel intervention in which participants learn to associate appetitive cues with inhibition of behaviour. We present a meta-analytic investigation of laboratory studies of ICT for appetitive behaviour change in which we investigate candidate mechanisms of action, individual differences that may moderate its effectiveness, and compare it to other psychological interventions. We conducted random-effects generic inverse variance meta-analysis on data from 14 articles (18 effect sizes in total). Participants who received ICT chose or consumed significantly less food or alcohol compared to control groups (SMD = 0.36, 95% CIs [0.24, 0.47]; Z = 6.18, p < .001; I(2) = 71%). Effect sizes were larger for motor (Go/No-Go and Stop Signal) compared to oculomotor (Antisaccade) ICT. The effects of ICT on behaviour were comparable to those produced by other psychological interventions, and effects of ICT on food intake were greater in participants who were attempting to restrict their food intake. The magnitude of the effect of ICT on behaviour was predicted by the proportion of successful inhibitions but was unrelated to the absolute number of trials in which appetitive cues were paired with the requirement to inhibit, or the contingency between appetitive cues and the requirement to inhibit. The effect of ICT on cue devaluation (primarily assessed with implicit association tests) was not statistically significant. Our analysis confirms the efficacy of ICT for short-term behaviour change in the laboratory, and we have demonstrated that its effectiveness may depend on pairings between appetitive cues and successful inhibition. We highlight the need for further research to translate these findings outside of the laboratory.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.013

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 76 references

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Jones, A., Di Lemma, L. C. G., Robinson, E., Christiansen, P., Nolan, S., Tudur-Smith, C., & Field, M.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
97
Pages
16-28
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2179388130
Cited by
334
References
76
FWCI
35.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.013
The paper
Jones, A., Di Lemma, L. C. G., Robinson, E., Christiansen, P., Nolan, S., Tudur-Smith, C., & Field, M. (2016). Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness. Appetite. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.11.013

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.