Cited by 144Regulation of Appetite and ObesityNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorEating Disorders and Behaviors

Individual differences in the neurophysiology of reward and the obesity epidemic

Open access
Small, D M·2009·International Journal of Obesity

Abstract

The obesity epidemic has unfolded in a matter of decades, not millennia, and therefore cannot be attributed to a drift in the genome. Rather, the temporal characteristics of the epidemic more closely track environmental and lifestyle changes, such as reduced physical activity, increased availability of palatable and energy-dense foods and drinks, and increased acceptance of eating outside of meal time (among others). One important observation is that not everyone is becoming obese. This suggests that individual factors interact with recent environmental changes to predispose some to overeat. One hypothesis that has been gaining traction in the neuroscience community is that individual differences in the neural encoding of foods may predispose some to overeat in the presence of a surplus of energy-dense, palatable foods and drinks. The aim of this review is to highlight several possible ways by which individual differences in the neurophysiology of food reward may lead to overeating.

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 · 10.1038/ijo.2009.71

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • There is a considerable body of literature demonstrating differences in reward functions between lean and obese animals and humans.

    “There is a considerable body of literature demonstrating differences in reward functions between lean and obese animals and humans ([40](#B40), [162](#B162), [173](#B173), [174](#B174)).”

    From Food reward, hyperphagia, and obesity (2011) · cites this paper as [162]

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 64 · Cited by 144

Authors
Small, D. M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Small, D M
Venue
International Journal of Obesity
Published
2009-06
Volume
33
Issue
S2
Pages
S44-S48
ISSN
  • 0307-0565 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5497
OpenAlex
W1992061204
Cited by
144
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Obesity (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R03DA022292)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Endocrine and Autonomic Systems › Regulation of Appetite and Obesity
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
Keywords
obesity epidemic, food reward, individual differences, overeating, energy-dense foods, palatable food, reduced physical activity
MeSH terms
Energy Intake, Cues, Eating, Energy Metabolism, Environment, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Life Style, Obesity, Reward, Satiation

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