Cited by 191Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesRegulation of Appetite and ObesityVisual Attention and Saliency Detection

The impact of hunger on food cue processing: An event-related brain potential study

Stockburger, Jessica, Schmälzle, Ralf, Flaisch, Tobias, Bublatzky, Florian, Schupp, Harald T.·2009·NeuroImage

Abstract

The present study used event-related brain potentials to examine deprivation effects on visual attention to food stimuli at the level of distinct processing stages. Thirty-two healthy volunteers (16 females) were tested twice 1 week apart, either after 24 h of food deprivation or after normal food intake. Participants viewed a continuous stream of food and flower images while dense sensor ERPs were recorded. As revealed by distinct ERP modulations in relatively earlier and later time windows, deprivation affected the processing of food and flower pictures. Between 300 and 360 ms, food pictures were associated with enlarged occipito-temporal negativity and centro-parietal positivity in deprived compared to satiated state. Of main interest, in a later time window (approximately 450-600 ms), deprivation increased amplitudes of the late positive potential elicited by food pictures. Conversely, flower processing varied by motivational state with decreased positive potentials in the deprived state. Minimum-Norm analyses provided further evidence that deprivation enhanced visual attention to food cues in later processing stages. From the perspective of motivated attention, hunger may induce a heightened state of attention for food stimuli in a processing stage related to stimulus recognition and focused attention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.04.071

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Responses to food cues depend on nutrition status, highlighting the role of the homeostatic network in controlling the reward network, which is also influenced by stress-processing pathways.

    “The dependence of the responses to food cues on the nutrition status (60,61) highlights the role of the homeostatic network in the control of the reward network, which in turn is also influenced by neuronal pathways that process stress.”

    From Obesity and addiction: Neurobiological overlaps (2013) · cites this paper as [61]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 80 · Cited by 191

Authors
Stockburger, J., Schmälzle, R., Flaisch, T., Bublatzky, F., & Schupp, H. T.
Affiliations
University of Konstanz (DE)
Corresponding author
Schupp, Harald T.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
1819-1829
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2134086395
Cited by
191
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 12
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
Keywords
hunger, food deprivation, visual attention, event-related potentials, late positive potential, motivated attention, food stimuli, stimulus recognition
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Cues, Evoked Potentials, Female, Food, Food Deprivation, Humans, Hunger, Male, Photic Stimulation

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