Individual differences in the neurophysiology of reward and the obesity epidemic
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
- ORCID
- 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
- PMC
- PMC2788336
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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