Binge EatingNCT03353649
Applying Novel Technologies and Methods to Inform the Ontology of Self-Regulation: Binge Eating and Smoking
A study testing Now vs. Later Cue and fMRI in people with Binge Eating and Smoking, Tobacco, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
This study aims to examine targets of self-regulatory function among two exemplar populations for which behavior plays a critical role in health outcomes: smokers and individual who binge eat (BED). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 years, men onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Binge Eating, Smoking, Tobacco, Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Now vs. Later Cue and fMRI
- Type of treatment
- Medical device, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 115 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 8 Dec 2017to 14 Jan 2018
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- Men only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Understand English sufficiently to provide informed consent
- Right-handed
- Normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no color blindness
- Additional Inclusion Criteria for Smoking sample:
- Smoke 5 or more tobacco cigarettes/day for past year
- BMI greater than or equal to 17 and less than 27
Show all 10Show fewer
- Additional Inclusion Criteria for Binge Eating Sample:
- BMI greater than or equal to 27 and less than 45
- Weight limit of 350 lbs
- Non-smoking (defined as no cigarettes in past 12 months-this includes former and never smokers)
Who cannot join
- Significant medical illness
- History of mental disorder due to a medical condition
- Lifetime history of major psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder)
- Current use of any medication for psychiatric reasons (including stimulants and mood stabilizers)
- Additional Exclusion criteria for Binge Eating Sample:
- Lost weight in recent past (>10 pounds in past 6 months)
Show all 10Show fewer
- Currently in a weight-loss program (e.g., Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig)
- Currently on a special diet for a serious health condition
- Additional Exclusion Criteria for Smoking Sample:
- Binge eating behavior
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
This study aims to examine targets of self-regulatory function among two exemplar populations for which behavior plays a critical role in health outcomes: smokers and individual who binge eat (BED). This is the second phase of a study that aims to identify putative mechanisms of behavior change to develop an overarching "ontology" of self-regulatory processes.
Read the detailed description
Health risk behavior, including poor diet, physical inactivity, tobacco and other substance use, causes as much as 40% of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases. Non-adherence to medical regimens is an important exemplar of the challenges in changing health risk behavior -- and is common, costly (due to increased utilization of healthcare services), and associated with poor patient outcomes. This may be particularly evident among older adults who experience a disproportionate amount of the chronic disease burden in the U.S. Although an array of interventions have been shown to be effective in promoting health behavior change, much of this work has been siloed (focused on one disorder at a time).
Additionally, interventions are typically intended to engage multiple mechanisms of behavior change, but the mechanisms by which they actually work are infrequently systematically examined. Because the need to alter health-related behavior is ubiquitous across medicine, understanding the extent to which the principles of effective health behavior change, and the mechanisms by which they work, are similar or differ across health conditions and settings is a critically important area of scientific inquiry. Improving medical regimen adherence and promoting health behavior change are also crucial issues in the changing healthcare landscape, where quality, value, cost and patient-centered care are central. This line of research may allow for great strides in crafting "precision medicine" approaches for a wide array of populations.
One promising domain of putative behavior change targets is that of self-regulation -- a person's ability to manage cognitive, motivational and emotional resources to act in accordance with his/her long-term goals. In this proposal, the investigators have assembled an outstanding interdisciplinary team to 'scale up' this work to an unprecedented level by examining putative targets of behavior change within the self-regulation mechanism domain across contexts, populations, and assays - in 3 primary levels of analysis: (1) psychological (e.g., constructs such as self-efficacy; emotion regulation; response inhibition), (2) behavioral (e.g., tasks of reward responsiveness; temporal horizon), and (3) biological (structural and functional MRI of key neural circuitry). The investigators will conduct this work with two exemplar populations for which behavior plays a critical role in the course of medical regimen adherence, health, and health outcomes: (1) smokers and (2) binge eaters.
In these groups, the investigators will evaluate the extent to which participants can engage and manipulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain both within and outside of laboratory settings. 50 smokers and 50 obese/overweight persons will participate in a lab study to complete the identified tasks.
The investigators will experimentally modulate engagement of targets (e.g., stimulus set of palatable foods images or tobacco-related images as well as self-regulation interventions).
Subjects will participate in a 30 minute introductory session and a single testing session at Stanford, which will include testing using a subset of self-regulatory tasks from the following list (stop-signal task, conditional motor selective stop signal task, Stroop task, dot pattern expectancy task, attention network task, Columbia card task, task switching, delay discounting task, tower of Hanoi, and emotion regulation task). The order of assessments will be counterbalanced across subjects. Imaging will allow an assessment of the degree to which the neural systems associated with each element in the ontology can be engaged and manipulated in the clinical samples. Imaging will be performed at the Stanford Center for Neurobiological Imaging, which has a research-dedicated 3T GE MRI scanner with all necessary accessories for stimulation and recording. In addition to task-based fMRI, the investigators will collect resting-state fMRI while passively viewing either a blank screen or a movie that may include smoking or food-related stimuli. The proposed sample size of 50 per clinical group will provide sufficient power to detect delta=0.56 between groups, and a correlation of r=0.2 across the aggregated sample.
As the investigators collect data from all participants, they will include manipulations (or "motivating operations") meant to modulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain in each clinical group - to assess the extent to which participants can shift self-regulatory function both in desired and undesired directions. This will be achieved by (1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (images of highly palatable foods for obese individuals, and tobacco-related images or smokers), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation ("now" vs "later" cues that instruct subjects to engage with the immediate hedonistic properties of the stimulus or the long-term consequences of using the stimulus, respectively) designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets.
- Conditions
- Binge Eating, Smoking, Tobacco, Behavior
- Being tested
- Now vs. Later Cue, fMRI
- Medical subject headings
- Bulimia, Tobacco Smoking, Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Now vs. Later CueBehavioural
As we collect data from all participants, we will include manipulations (or "motivating operations") meant to modulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain in each clinical group - to assess the extent to which we can shift self-regulatory function both in desired and undesired directions. More specifically, subjects will see a "now" cue instructing them to think of immediately using/consuming that stimulus or a "later" cue instruction them to think about the long-term consequences of using/consuming that stimulus. The latter cue is intended to down-regulate desire to use/consume the stimulus, and this down-regulation is measured by a subsequent probe asking subjects the degree to which they want to use/consume that stimulus.
fMRIDevice
Subjects will complete the tasks inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging device, allowing us to measure brain activity that while completing each task.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Binge Eating Group | Experimental | (1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (images of highly palatable foods for obese individuals), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets. Specifically, participants in this sample will be exposed to images of food and control non-food images. In different trials, subjects will be given a "now" cue instructing them to engage with the immediate hedonic properties of the stimulus or a "later" cue instructing them to imagine the long-term consequences of using the stimulus.
This arm includes fMRI and the now vs. later cue intervention Receives: Behavioral: Now vs. Later Cue; Device: fMRI |
| Smoking Group | Experimental | (1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (tobacco-related images or smokers), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets.
A similar approach to the Binge Eating sample will be used for the smoking sample using two stimulus sets. Instead of foods and non-food control images, smokers will see smoking-related images and the same control non-food non-smoking images as the Binge Eating sample.
This Arm includes fMRI and the now vs. later cue intervention Receives: Behavioral: Now vs. Later Cue; Device: fMRI |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Behavioral Regulation
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The degree to which subjects can regulate their desire to consume their stimulus of value after a later cue is evidence of successful self regulation.
Measured: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Regulation of fMRI activation
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The fMRI activation relating to this interaction is taken as the activation-based neural underpinnings of self-regulation.
Measured: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Changes in fMRI functional connectivity
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The fMRI functional connectivity changes relating to this interaction is taken as the connectivity-based neural underpinnings of self-regulation.
Measured: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted27 Nov 2017
- Study start8 Dec 2017
- Primary completion14 Jan 2018
- Study completion14 Jan 2018
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (19)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Binge EatingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Stanford UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 115 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Russell Alan Poldrack, Stanford University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03353649
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 5UH2DA041713-02
- Other IDs
- UH2DA041713
- Status last verified
- Sep 2019
- First submitted
- 15 Nov 2017
- Last updated
- 25 Sep 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual participant data for all outcome measures will be made available
Publications
De Jong R, Coles MG, Logan GD. Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Jun;21(3):498-511. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.498.
PubMed 7790830Bissett PG, Logan GD. Balancing cognitive demands: control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Mar;37(2):392-404. doi: 10.1037/a0021800.
PubMed 21171806Logan GD, Van Zandt T, Verbruggen F, Wagenmakers EJ. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: general and special theories of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 2014 Jan;121(1):66-95. doi: 10.1037/a0035230.
PubMed 24490789Hofmann W, Schmeichel BJ, Baddeley AD. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Mar;16(3):174-80. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006. Epub 2012 Feb 13.
PubMed 22336729MacLeod CM. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991 Mar;109(2):163-203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. No abstract available.
PubMed 2034749Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
Otto AR, Skatova A, Madlon-Kay S, Daw ND. Cognitive control predicts use of model-based reinforcement learning. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Feb;27(2):319-33. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00709.
PubMed 25170791Fan J, McCandliss BD, Sommer T, Raz A, Posner MI. Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Apr 1;14(3):340-7. doi: 10.1162/089892902317361886.
PubMed 11970796Casey BJ, Jones RM, Hare TA. The adolescent brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:111-26. doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.010.
PubMed 18400927Figner B, Mackinlay RJ, Wilkening F, Weber EU. Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):709-30. doi: 10.1037/a0014983.
PubMed 19379045Mayr U, Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):362-72. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362.
PubMed 12776747Daugherty, J. R., & Brase, G. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual differences, 48(2), 202-207.
Koffarnus MN, Bickel WK. A 5-trial adjusting delay discounting task: accurate discount rates in less than one minute. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014 Jun;22(3):222-8. doi: 10.1037/a0035973. Epub 2014 Apr 7.
PubMed 24708144Kirby KN, Marakovic NN. Delay-discounting probabilistic rewards: Rates decrease as amounts increase. Psychon Bull Rev. 1996 Mar;3(1):100-4. doi: 10.3758/BF03210748.
PubMed 24214810Phillips LH, Wynn VE, McPherson S, Gilhooly KJ. Mental planning and the Tower of London task. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2001 May;54(2):579-97. doi: 10.1080/713755977.
PubMed 11394063
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Sep 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Applying Novel Technologies and Methods to Inform the Ontology of Self-Regulation: Binge Eating and Smoking
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03353649
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 5UH2DA041713-02
- Conditions
- Binge Eating, Smoking, Tobacco, Behavior
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 115 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Stanford UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
- Study start
- 8 Dec 2017 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Jan 2018 (actual)
- Study completion
- 14 Jan 2018 (actual)
- First posted
- 27 Nov 2017 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study aims to examine targets of self-regulatory function among two exemplar populations for which behavior plays a critical role in health outcomes: smokers and individual who binge eat (BED). This is the second phase of a study that aims to identify putative mechanisms of behavior change to develop an overarching "ontology" of self-regulatory processes.
Detailed description
Health risk behavior, including poor diet, physical inactivity, tobacco and other substance use, causes as much as 40% of the illness, suffering, and early death related to chronic diseases. Non-adherence to medical regimens is an important exemplar of the challenges in changing health risk behavior -- and is common, costly (due to increased utilization of healthcare services), and associated with poor patient outcomes. This may be particularly evident among older adults who experience a disproportionate amount of the chronic disease burden in the U.S. Although an array of interventions have been shown to be effective in promoting health behavior change, much of this work has been siloed (focused on one disorder at a time).
Additionally, interventions are typically intended to engage multiple mechanisms of behavior change, but the mechanisms by which they actually work are infrequently systematically examined. Because the need to alter health-related behavior is ubiquitous across medicine, understanding the extent to which the principles of effective health behavior change, and the mechanisms by which they work, are similar or differ across health conditions and settings is a critically important area of scientific inquiry. Improving medical regimen adherence and promoting health behavior change are also crucial issues in the changing healthcare landscape, where quality, value, cost and patient-centered care are central. This line of research may allow for great strides in crafting "precision medicine" approaches for a wide array of populations.
One promising domain of putative behavior change targets is that of self-regulation -- a person's ability to manage cognitive, motivational and emotional resources to act in accordance with his/her long-term goals. In this proposal, the investigators have assembled an outstanding interdisciplinary team to 'scale up' this work to an unprecedented level by examining putative targets of behavior change within the self-regulation mechanism domain across contexts, populations, and assays - in 3 primary levels of analysis: (1) psychological (e.g., constructs such as self-efficacy; emotion regulation; response inhibition), (2) behavioral (e.g., tasks of reward responsiveness; temporal horizon), and (3) biological (structural and functional MRI of key neural circuitry). The investigators will conduct this work with two exemplar populations for which behavior plays a critical role in the course of medical regimen adherence, health, and health outcomes: (1) smokers and (2) binge eaters.
In these groups, the investigators will evaluate the extent to which participants can engage and manipulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain both within and outside of laboratory settings. 50 smokers and 50 obese/overweight persons will participate in a lab study to complete the identified tasks.
The investigators will experimentally modulate engagement of targets (e.g., stimulus set of palatable foods images or tobacco-related images as well as self-regulation interventions).
Subjects will participate in a 30 minute introductory session and a single testing session at Stanford, which will include testing using a subset of self-regulatory tasks from the following list (stop-signal task, conditional motor selective stop signal task, Stroop task, dot pattern expectancy task, attention network task, Columbia card task, task switching, delay discounting task, tower of Hanoi, and emotion regulation task). The order of assessments will be counterbalanced across subjects. Imaging will allow an assessment of the degree to which the neural systems associated with each element in the ontology can be engaged and manipulated in the clinical samples. Imaging will be performed at the Stanford Center for Neurobiological Imaging, which has a research-dedicated 3T GE MRI scanner with all necessary accessories for stimulation and recording. In addition to task-based fMRI, the investigators will collect resting-state fMRI while passively viewing either a blank screen or a movie that may include smoking or food-related stimuli. The proposed sample size of 50 per clinical group will provide sufficient power to detect delta=0.56 between groups, and a correlation of r=0.2 across the aggregated sample.
As the investigators collect data from all participants, they will include manipulations (or "motivating operations") meant to modulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain in each clinical group - to assess the extent to which participants can shift self-regulatory function both in desired and undesired directions. This will be achieved by (1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (images of highly palatable foods for obese individuals, and tobacco-related images or smokers), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation ("now" vs "later" cues that instruct subjects to engage with the immediate hedonistic properties of the stimulus or the long-term consequences of using the stimulus, respectively) designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Binge Eating Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Now vs. Later Cue, Device: fMRI(1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (images of highly palatable foods for obese individuals), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets. Specifically, participants in this sample will be exposed to images of food and control non-food images. In different trials, subjects will be given a "now" cue instructing them to engage with the immediate hedonic properties of the stimulus or a "later" cue instructing them to imagine the long-term consequences of using the stimulus. This arm includes fMRI and the now vs. later cue intervention |
| Smoking Group | Experimental | Behavioral: Now vs. Later Cue, Device: fMRI(1) exposing subjects to specific stimulus sets relevant to the sample that may promote engagement of appetitive drives (tobacco-related images or smokers), and (2) exposing them to an instructional manipulation designed to engage self-regulatory processes in the presence of these stimulus sets. A similar approach to the Binge Eating sample will be used for the smoking sample using two stimulus sets. Instead of foods and non-food control images, smokers will see smoking-related images and the same control non-food non-smoking images as the Binge Eating sample. This Arm includes fMRI and the now vs. later cue intervention |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Understand English sufficiently to provide informed consent
- Right-handed
- Normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no color blindness
- Smoke 5 or more tobacco cigarettes/day for past year
- BMI greater than or equal to 17 and less than 27
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Significant medical illness
- History of mental disorder due to a medical condition
- Lifetime history of major psychotic disorders (including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder)
- Current use of any medication for psychiatric reasons (including stimulants and mood stabilizers)
- Lost weight in recent past (>10 pounds in past 6 months)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Now vs. Later CueAs we collect data from all participants, we will include manipulations (or "motivating operations") meant to modulate putative targets within the self-regulation domain in each clinical group - to assess the extent to which we can shift self-regulatory function both in desired and undesired directions. More specifically, subjects will see a "now" cue instructing them to think of immediately using/consuming that stimulus or a "later" cue instruction them to think about the long-term consequences of using/consuming that stimulus. The latter cue is intended to down-regulate desire to use/consume the stimulus, and this down-regulation is measured by a subsequent probe asking subjects the degree to which they want to use/consume that stimulus. | Behavioural | Binge Eating Group, Smoking Group |
| fMRISubjects will complete the tasks inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging device, allowing us to measure brain activity that while completing each task. | Device | Binge Eating Group, Smoking Group |
Primary outcome
Behavioral Regulation
Time frame: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The degree to which subjects can regulate their desire to consume their stimulus of value after a later cue is evidence of successful self regulation.
Regulation of fMRI activation
Time frame: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The fMRI activation relating to this interaction is taken as the activation-based neural underpinnings of self-regulation.
Changes in fMRI functional connectivity
Time frame: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject
Interaction of stimulus class, which is the stimulus of value (smoking stimuli for smokers and palatable foods for binge eaters) vs. neutral control stimuli, with the cue, which is the now vs. later cue. The fMRI functional connectivity changes relating to this interaction is taken as the connectivity-based neural underpinnings of self-regulation.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Sep 2019.
- Background: PubMed 7790830De Jong R, Coles MG, Logan GD. Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Jun;21(3):498-511. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.498.
- Background: PubMed 21171806Bissett PG, Logan GD. Balancing cognitive demands: control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Mar;37(2):392-404. doi: 10.1037/a0021800.
- Background: PubMed 24490789Logan GD, Van Zandt T, Verbruggen F, Wagenmakers EJ. On the ability to inhibit thought and action: general and special theories of an act of control. Psychol Rev. 2014 Jan;121(1):66-95. doi: 10.1037/a0035230.
- Background: PubMed 22336729Hofmann W, Schmeichel BJ, Baddeley AD. Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Mar;16(3):174-80. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.01.006. Epub 2012 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 2034749MacLeod CM. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychol Bull. 1991 Mar;109(2):163-203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163. No abstract available.
- BackgroundStroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
- Background: PubMed 25170791Otto AR, Skatova A, Madlon-Kay S, Daw ND. Cognitive control predicts use of model-based reinforcement learning. J Cogn Neurosci. 2015 Feb;27(2):319-33. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00709.
- Background: PubMed 11970796Fan J, McCandliss BD, Sommer T, Raz A, Posner MI. Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Apr 1;14(3):340-7. doi: 10.1162/089892902317361886.
- Background: PubMed 18400927Casey BJ, Jones RM, Hare TA. The adolescent brain. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:111-26. doi: 10.1196/annals.1440.010.
- Background: PubMed 19379045Figner B, Mackinlay RJ, Wilkening F, Weber EU. Affective and deliberative processes in risky choice: age differences in risk taking in the Columbia Card Task. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May;35(3):709-30. doi: 10.1037/a0014983.
- Background: PubMed 12776747Mayr U, Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):362-72. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362.
- BackgroundDaugherty, J. R., & Brase, G. L. (2010). Taking time to be healthy: Predicting health behaviors with delay discounting and time perspective. Personality and Individual differences, 48(2), 202-207.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual participant data for all outcome measures will be made available
Related trials for Binge Eating
Recruiting
Understanding and Targeting Self-Regulatory Control in Bulimia Nervosa
Bulimia Nervosa, Feeding and Eating Disorders
Enrolling by invitation
Sleep and Activity For Eating Disorders
Eating Disorders, Anorexia Nervosa
Not yet recruiting
Be Body Brave: Digital Written Exposure Therapy for Eating Disorders
Eating Disorders
Recruiting
Neurofeedback During Eating for Bulimia Nervosa
Bulimia Nervosa
Active, not recruiting
Project VIBE: Virtual Intervention for Binge Eating in Adolescents
Obesity, Binge-Eating Disorder
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Now vs. Later Cue and fMRI in people with Binge Eating and Smoking, Tobacco, run by Stanford University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 10 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Sep 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Behavioral Regulation (time frame: A single 1.5 hour session for each subject). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03353649, which also lists 19 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Sep 2019.