Food PreferencesFOODPICNCT05719142
Physiological and Eating-behavioral Responses to Viewing Sensory-specific Food Pictures
A study testing Picture exposure in people with Food Preferences and Eating Behavior, run by Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen at 1 site in Denmark.
Trial summary
The overall objective of the research project is to characterize the consequences of digital food stimuli exposure on eating behavior. Specifically, we aim to study cephalic phase physiology, food choice and quantity, as well as post-ingestive sensations in response to viewing sensory-specific food pictures. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Food Preferences, Eating Behavior, Psychological
- What is being tested?
- Picture exposure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 25 participants
- Where
- 1 siteDenmark
- Study dates
- 17 Jan 2023to 29 Jun 2023
- 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 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no color-blindness
- Danish understanding
Who cannot join
- Regular smoking
- Dietary constraints, e.g., vegan/vegetarian, gluten or lactose intolerance, allergies
- For women: pregnancy / planned pregnancy (within the study period) / lactating
- Unable to understand the informed consent and the study procedures
- Self-reported history of an eating disorder in the past 3 years
- Self-reported weight change (>5 kg) within three months before inclusion
Show all 11Show fewer
- Uncontrolled medical issues, e.g.including, cardiovascular pulmonary, rheumatologic, hematologic, oncologic, infectious, GI or psychiatric disease, diabetes or other endocrine diseases, immunosuppression
- Current treatment with medication or medical devices significantly affecting glucose metabolism, appetite, or energy balance
- Current treatment with antidepressants
- Bariatric surgery
- Alcohol/drug abuse or in treatment with disulfiram (Antabus) at the time of inclusion
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
The overall objective of the research project is to characterize the consequences of digital food stimuli exposure on eating behavior. Specifically, we aim to study cephalic phase physiology, food choice and quantity, as well as post-ingestive sensations in response to viewing sensory-specific food pictures. Furthermore, we want to examine whether these outcomes depend on sweet taste liking, as determined by FGF21 concentrations in the blood and the phenotypical Sweet Taste Liker Test. Section 2.1 lists the primary hypotheses.
Read the detailed description
Watching television is associated with an increased risk of being overweight. On the more modern internet-based digital media food represents a major content category. The vast majority of people in the United States look at screens during the majority of their meals. It, therefore, seems prudent to study the eating behavioral impact of common (food-related) digital media habits.
One particularly popular digital media type is food pictures. While food pictures can elicit hunger, they might also cause satiation. One study showed that rating the taste of 60 (vs. 20) food pictures of a salty (vs. sweet) taste decreased liking for subsequently consumed peanuts (i.e., a salty food). The mechanism behind this finding is an implicit mental simulation of food consumption - necessary to make a hedonic judgment - and a process that spontaneously occurs at the sight of food. Analogous research in mental imagery - explicit mental simulation - similarly found that repeated imagined consumption of a food can decrease subsequent actual intake of that same food.
Cephalic phase responses are conditioned or learned physiological anticipatory responses to food. In the subsequent century, scientific investigation has moved beyond saliva to also include hormones measured in blood. Many cephalic phase responses depend on vagus nerve efferent activation. Pancreatic polypeptide is the most robust and reliable proxy for such vagal activity. Researchers have used a multitude of methods to trigger the cephalic phase responses, including actual food consumption, sham feeding (i.e., orosensory stimulation without absorption), and visual, olfactory, and cognitive cues.
There are some indications that cephalic phase vagal activation might be sensory-specific, i.e., that the vagus nerve is differentially stimulated by sweet and salty stimuli. Pancreatic polypeptide responds differently to (modified) sham feeding solid food with palatable or unpalatable levels of sweet or salty taste while keeping the macronutrient content constant. Specifically, the palatable-sweet conditions had a significantly increased pancreatic polypeptide response compared to the salty conditions.
Contrary to the common belief that sweetness is universally liked, researchers have consistently found marked differences in individuals' taste preferences. Recent research identified FGF21 as a key physiological determinant of sweet taste liking. Fasting FGF21 blood concentrations are lower in participants classified as sweet taste likers compared to dislikers, based on a taste preference questionnaire. FGF21 gene variants were also predictive of habitual candy intake. The agreement between FGF21 blood levels and phenotypical assessment methods of sweet taste liking is unknown. Overall, it seems plausible to speculate that cephalic phase responses manifest sensory-specific differences based on both stimulus and participant.
In the last decade, researchers have begun to study cephalic phase responses to food pictures. None of the studies measured vagal activation via pancreatic polypeptide secretion. While the studies that included a post-stimulus meal challenge replicated established beneficial effects on postprandial glucose metabolism, none of them found explicit evidence for a picture-induced cephalic phase insulin response. However, it must be noted that blood sampling schedules were suboptimal and the studies, therefore, unlikely to capture any effect. The study of cephalic phase ghrelin secretion also yielded inconclusive results. Some research showed a significant increase in total ghrelin levels after exposure to food pictures, but not after non-food pictures. However, other research did not confirm this finding. Ghrelin is of principal importance in hunger regulation, and known to cause food intake in humans. In rats, visual cues increase brain activity and food anticipatory behavior similar to exogenously administered ghrelin. And yet, in another study, participants exposed to food pictures before an ad libitum buffet consumed as many calories as those exposed to non-food pictures.
One important limitation of the aforementioned investigations is that all exposed their participants to 45-50 pictures, depicting a large variety of food and tastes. Some researchers used picture sets of food with different macronutrient profiles, but the food tastes still widely varied within each set. In contrast, prior research using actual food as visual (and olfactory) stimuli exposed participants only to a very limited food selection. Using highly varied food stimuli stands in contrast to the stimulus repetition paradigm, as well as a particular study, which exposed participants to food pictures of a specific taste (i.e., sweet or salty). Furthermore, research has long established that food variety increases energy intake, essentially delaying stimulus habituation. This effect appears to be highly psychological. For example, satiation to one kind of jelly bean can be reset simply by recalling the other kinds they had consumed some minutes ago. An experiment controlling for stimulus taste would elucidate the sensory-specific physiological and behavioral responses to food cues.
Finally, cephalic phase responses may relate to individual tendencies in eating behavior. One study investigating the relationship between the cephalic phase insulin response and dietary restraint, disinhibition, or hunger, as measured by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, did not find any association. However, no study to date has investigated the relationship between external eating tendencies and cephalic phase responses. External eating refers to food consumption in response to environmental cues. One might speculate that, beyond purely neurological influences, endocrine cephalic phase responses mediate such behavior.
The study foresees three participant visits. The three visits mainly differ in the administered visual stimuli. The procedure is described below.
Participants will arrive in the morning around 08:00 after an overnight fast. At 08:15 an investigator will draw an initial baseline blood sample. In the following 15 minutes, an investigator will introduce the image viewing task. Participants will be seated in front of a computer monitor, equipped with a screen-based eye-tracker. An investigator will subsequently configure the eye-tracker and allow participants to acclimatize to the setup. At 08:30, an investigator will draw a second baseline blood sample, and subsequently start the 15 minutes image viewing task. At 08:45, participants will be presented with breakfast choices, shown on the computer monitor. Thus, they will freely choose breakfast type and amount at each visit, which an investigator will prepare and serve at 09:00. Biometric data will be collected during the full image viewing and food choice tasks. While waiting for the breakfast to be prepared, participants will watch a neutral video. After breakfast consumption, participants will rate their post-ingestive sensations.
During the first visit, participants will also undergo basic anthropometric measurements.
During the last visit, participants will also complete the Sweet Liker test, as well as fill out selected eating behavior questionnaires.
- Conditions
- Food Preferences, Eating Behavior, Psychological
- Being tested
- Picture exposure
- Medical subject headings
- Food Preferences, Feeding Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Picture exposureOther
Participants are shown pictures for 15 minutes; 50 images in total, each shown for 6 seconds, and 3 times in total.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Sweet Food (SW) | Experimental | Exposure to pictures of sweet food. Receives: Other: Picture exposure |
| Savoury Food (SA) | Experimental | Exposure to pictures of savoury food. Receives: Other: Picture exposure |
| Non-Food (NF) | Experimental | Exposure to pictures of non-food items. Receives: Other: Picture exposure |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pancreatic polypeptide concentrations (pg/ml)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Secondary outcomes (17)
Hunger (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire to eat something (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something sweet (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something salty (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something fatty (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Breakfast liking (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Feelings of satisfaction (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Feelings of fullness (self-reported, VAS)
Assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale, anchored "Not at all" (0) and "Extremely" (100).
Measured: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Eye movement
Eye movement patterns are recorded by an eye-tracker, the data processed and respective metrics (including gaze duration bias, gaze direction bias, fixations, saccades, pupil size/dilation, distance to screen, ocular vergence and blinks to measure attention) calculated by the iMotions software.
Measured: Measured during t = 0-15 minutes, and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Food choice
Participants will be able to select from a menu of four meals, consisting of two sweet and savoury options. The basic taste (sweet/savoury) of the chosen food will be compared between the visits.
Measured: Captured during t = 15 minutes, and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Food intake (kcal)
Participants will be able to select from a menu of four portion sizes. After consumption of the meal, the remaining food will be weighed. The outcome measure is based on the actually consumed energy content.
Measured: Portion size is captured at t = 15 minutes. Actual food intake (kcal) is measured after meal completion (t = 45 minutes), and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Glucose concentrations (mmol/l)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Insulin concentrations (µg/ml)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Ghrelin concentrations (pg/ml)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
FGF21 concentrations (pg/ml)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
GLP-1 concentrations (pmol/l)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Peptide YY concentrations (pmol/l)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
Measured: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Feb 2023
- Study start17 Jan 2023
- Primary completion29 Jun 2023
- Study completion29 Jun 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Food PreferencesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Model description
- All participants will complete all three study visits. The visits differ in the employed experimental stimuli, namely the pictures (sweet food, savoury food, non-food).
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Aarhus
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Kristine Færch, PhD, Principal investigator, Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05719142
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RM-110729522
- Acronym
- FOODPIC
- Status last verified
- Aug 2023
- First submitted
- 19 Jan 2023
- Last updated
- 15 Aug 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Aug 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Physiological and Eating-behavioral Responses to Viewing Sensory-specific Food Pictures
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05719142
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FOODPIC / RM-110729522
- Conditions
- Food Preferences, Eating Behavior, Psychological
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 25 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Steno Diabetes Center CopenhagenUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Aarhus
- Study start
- 17 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 29 Jun 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 29 Jun 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Feb 2023 (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.
The overall objective of the research project is to characterize the consequences of digital food stimuli exposure on eating behavior. Specifically, we aim to study cephalic phase physiology, food choice and quantity, as well as post-ingestive sensations in response to viewing sensory-specific food pictures. Furthermore, we want to examine whether these outcomes depend on sweet taste liking, as determined by FGF21 concentrations in the blood and the phenotypical Sweet Taste Liker Test. Section 2.1 lists the primary hypotheses.
Detailed description
Watching television is associated with an increased risk of being overweight. On the more modern internet-based digital media food represents a major content category. The vast majority of people in the United States look at screens during the majority of their meals. It, therefore, seems prudent to study the eating behavioral impact of common (food-related) digital media habits.
One particularly popular digital media type is food pictures. While food pictures can elicit hunger, they might also cause satiation. One study showed that rating the taste of 60 (vs. 20) food pictures of a salty (vs. sweet) taste decreased liking for subsequently consumed peanuts (i.e., a salty food). The mechanism behind this finding is an implicit mental simulation of food consumption - necessary to make a hedonic judgment - and a process that spontaneously occurs at the sight of food. Analogous research in mental imagery - explicit mental simulation - similarly found that repeated imagined consumption of a food can decrease subsequent actual intake of that same food.
Cephalic phase responses are conditioned or learned physiological anticipatory responses to food. In the subsequent century, scientific investigation has moved beyond saliva to also include hormones measured in blood. Many cephalic phase responses depend on vagus nerve efferent activation. Pancreatic polypeptide is the most robust and reliable proxy for such vagal activity. Researchers have used a multitude of methods to trigger the cephalic phase responses, including actual food consumption, sham feeding (i.e., orosensory stimulation without absorption), and visual, olfactory, and cognitive cues.
There are some indications that cephalic phase vagal activation might be sensory-specific, i.e., that the vagus nerve is differentially stimulated by sweet and salty stimuli. Pancreatic polypeptide responds differently to (modified) sham feeding solid food with palatable or unpalatable levels of sweet or salty taste while keeping the macronutrient content constant. Specifically, the palatable-sweet conditions had a significantly increased pancreatic polypeptide response compared to the salty conditions.
Contrary to the common belief that sweetness is universally liked, researchers have consistently found marked differences in individuals' taste preferences. Recent research identified FGF21 as a key physiological determinant of sweet taste liking. Fasting FGF21 blood concentrations are lower in participants classified as sweet taste likers compared to dislikers, based on a taste preference questionnaire. FGF21 gene variants were also predictive of habitual candy intake. The agreement between FGF21 blood levels and phenotypical assessment methods of sweet taste liking is unknown. Overall, it seems plausible to speculate that cephalic phase responses manifest sensory-specific differences based on both stimulus and participant.
In the last decade, researchers have begun to study cephalic phase responses to food pictures. None of the studies measured vagal activation via pancreatic polypeptide secretion. While the studies that included a post-stimulus meal challenge replicated established beneficial effects on postprandial glucose metabolism, none of them found explicit evidence for a picture-induced cephalic phase insulin response. However, it must be noted that blood sampling schedules were suboptimal and the studies, therefore, unlikely to capture any effect. The study of cephalic phase ghrelin secretion also yielded inconclusive results. Some research showed a significant increase in total ghrelin levels after exposure to food pictures, but not after non-food pictures. However, other research did not confirm this finding. Ghrelin is of principal importance in hunger regulation, and known to cause food intake in humans. In rats, visual cues increase brain activity and food anticipatory behavior similar to exogenously administered ghrelin. And yet, in another study, participants exposed to food pictures before an ad libitum buffet consumed as many calories as those exposed to non-food pictures.
One important limitation of the aforementioned investigations is that all exposed their participants to 45-50 pictures, depicting a large variety of food and tastes. Some researchers used picture sets of food with different macronutrient profiles, but the food tastes still widely varied within each set. In contrast, prior research using actual food as visual (and olfactory) stimuli exposed participants only to a very limited food selection. Using highly varied food stimuli stands in contrast to the stimulus repetition paradigm, as well as a particular study, which exposed participants to food pictures of a specific taste (i.e., sweet or salty). Furthermore, research has long established that food variety increases energy intake, essentially delaying stimulus habituation. This effect appears to be highly psychological. For example, satiation to one kind of jelly bean can be reset simply by recalling the other kinds they had consumed some minutes ago. An experiment controlling for stimulus taste would elucidate the sensory-specific physiological and behavioral responses to food cues.
Finally, cephalic phase responses may relate to individual tendencies in eating behavior. One study investigating the relationship between the cephalic phase insulin response and dietary restraint, disinhibition, or hunger, as measured by the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, did not find any association. However, no study to date has investigated the relationship between external eating tendencies and cephalic phase responses. External eating refers to food consumption in response to environmental cues. One might speculate that, beyond purely neurological influences, endocrine cephalic phase responses mediate such behavior.
The study foresees three participant visits. The three visits mainly differ in the administered visual stimuli. The procedure is described below.
Participants will arrive in the morning around 08:00 after an overnight fast. At 08:15 an investigator will draw an initial baseline blood sample. In the following 15 minutes, an investigator will introduce the image viewing task. Participants will be seated in front of a computer monitor, equipped with a screen-based eye-tracker. An investigator will subsequently configure the eye-tracker and allow participants to acclimatize to the setup. At 08:30, an investigator will draw a second baseline blood sample, and subsequently start the 15 minutes image viewing task. At 08:45, participants will be presented with breakfast choices, shown on the computer monitor. Thus, they will freely choose breakfast type and amount at each visit, which an investigator will prepare and serve at 09:00. Biometric data will be collected during the full image viewing and food choice tasks. While waiting for the breakfast to be prepared, participants will watch a neutral video. After breakfast consumption, participants will rate their post-ingestive sensations.
During the first visit, participants will also undergo basic anthropometric measurements.
During the last visit, participants will also complete the Sweet Liker test, as well as fill out selected eating behavior questionnaires.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- All participants will complete all three study visits. The visits differ in the employed experimental stimuli, namely the pictures (sweet food, savoury food, non-food).
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Sweet Food (SW) | Experimental | Other: Picture exposureExposure to pictures of sweet food. |
| Savoury Food (SA) | Experimental | Other: Picture exposureExposure to pictures of savoury food. |
| Non-Food (NF) | Experimental | Other: Picture exposureExposure to pictures of non-food items. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Normal or corrected-to-normal vision and no color-blindness
- Danish understanding
Key exclusion criteria (11 listed)
- Regular smoking
- Dietary constraints, e.g., vegan/vegetarian, gluten or lactose intolerance, allergies
- For women: pregnancy / planned pregnancy (within the study period) / lactating
- Unable to understand the informed consent and the study procedures
- Self-reported history of an eating disorder in the past 3 years
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Picture exposureParticipants are shown pictures for 15 minutes; 50 images in total, each shown for 6 seconds, and 3 times in total. | Other | Non-Food (NF), Savoury Food (SA), Sweet Food (SW) |
Primary outcome
Pancreatic polypeptide concentrations (pg/ml)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Assessed from blood samples in fasted state. Mixed models repeated measures comparison with subsequent post hoc testing.
17 secondary outcomes
Hunger (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire to eat something (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something sweet (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something salty (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Desire for something fatty (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) vs. after picture viewing (t = 15 minutes) vs. after breakfast consumption (t = 45 minutes), between-visit differences in differences (at least one week between each visit)
Breakfast liking (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Feelings of satisfaction (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Feelings of fullness (self-reported, VAS)
Time frame: Measured after meal consumption (t = 45 minutes) and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Eye movement
Time frame: Measured during t = 0-15 minutes, and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Food choice
Time frame: Captured during t = 15 minutes, and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Food intake (kcal)
Time frame: Portion size is captured at t = 15 minutes. Actual food intake (kcal) is measured after meal completion (t = 45 minutes), and compared between each visit (at least one week between each visit).
Glucose concentrations (mmol/l)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Insulin concentrations (µg/ml)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Ghrelin concentrations (pg/ml)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
FGF21 concentrations (pg/ml)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
GLP-1 concentrations (pmol/l)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
Peptide YY concentrations (pmol/l)
Time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)
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 15 Aug 2023.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Food Preferences
Recruiting
Influence of Social Media Ads on Food Choice - Master Protocol
Food Selection, Food Choices
Recruiting
The Florida ASCENT Study
Cancer, Food Deprivation
Recruiting
Using Single and Combined Nudge Strategies to Promote Healthier Beverage Intake Among College Students
Obesity, Food Selection
Recruiting
Influence of "Likes" in Social Media Food Ads on Black and White Adolescents' Food Purchases - Study 2
Food Selection
RecruitingObservational study
Evolution of Food Oral Processing Behaviours, Food Bolus Formation and Texture Preferences Between 6 to 12 Years Old and Adult Age
Food Oral Processing, Texture Preference
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.
Kristine Færch, PhD principal investigator
Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Picture exposure in people with Food Preferences and Eating Behavior, run by Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen at 1 site in Denmark.
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 2 inclusion and 11 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 15 Aug 2023. 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 Denmark. 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?
Pancreatic polypeptide concentrations (pg/ml) (time frame: Change against baseline (t = -15, 0 minutes) at t = 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 30 minutes, compared between visits (at least one week between each visit)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 15 Aug 2023.