Effects of Processed Foods on Brain Reward Circuitry and Food Cue Learning
NCT ID: NCT06165952
Last Updated: 2025-03-03
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
162 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2024-10-04
2029-02-28
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effect of Processing on Food Reward
NCT06017986
Ultra-Processed Foods and Executive Function
NCT06518863
Effects of Breakfast on Cognitive Processes in Children
NCT01063894
Effect of Ultra Processed Versus Unprocessed Diets on Energy Intake
NCT03407053
Food Structure of Pulses and Satiety
NCT04922125
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
A cross-over experiment with overweight adults found that ad lib access to an ultra-processed diet for 2-weeks resulted in increased caloric intake (508 kcal/day) and more weight gain versus ad lib access to a minimally-processed diet matched for presented calories, energy density, macronutrients, sugar, sodium, and fiber. The fact that ad lib access to ultra-processed foods resulted in a large increase in caloric intake and weight gain implies that ultra-processed foods may more effectively activate brain regions implicated in reward processing, attention/salience, and memory that influence eating behavior.
However, no brain imaging study has experimentally tested whether ultra-processed foods are more effective in activating brain regions implicated in reward, attention, and memory than minimally-processed foods or experimentally investigated the relative role of the elevated caloric density versus the flavor enhancers of ultra-processed foods in driving greater activation of these brain regions. Preliminary data showed that tastes of ultra-processed high-calorie chocolate milkshake produced greater activation in regions implicated in reward valuation (caudate, nucleus accumbens), attention/salience (precuneus), and memory retrieval (medial temporal gyrus, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex) than tastes of ultra-processed low-calorie chocolate milkshake.
The investigators propose to evaluate the efficacy of ultra-processed foods to activate reward, attention, and memory regions compared to minimally-processed foods, investigate the relative role of the higher caloric content versus the flavor additives/enhancers of ultra-processed foods to engage this circuitry using a 2 x 2 experimental design, test whether ultra-processed foods are more effective in increasing the incentive salience of food cues than minimally-processed foods, which is important because elevated reward region response to food cues/images increases risk for excess weight gain, and test whether individuals who show the greatest responsivity of reward, attention, and memory regions to ultra-processed foods and stronger food reward cue learning are at risk for greater ad lib intake of ultra-processed foods and future body fat gain.
Aim 1: Test the hypothesis that tastes, anticipated tastes, and images of ultra-processed foods activate reward, attention, and memory brain regions more than tastes, anticipated tastes, and images of minimally-processed foods, and evaluate the relative role of the higher caloric content versus flavor additives/enhancers in activating these regions using a 2 x 2 experimental design.
Aim 2: Test the hypothesis that ultra-processed foods foster stronger learning of cues that predict impending tastes of ultra-processed foods than minimally-processed foods, reflected by greater increases in striatal response over the course of cue exposure and quicker responses to cues for tastes of ultra-processed foods.
Aim 3: Test the hypothesis that participants who show greater activation in reward/attention/memory regions in response to tastes, anticipated tastes, and images of ultra-processed foods will consume more ultra-processed foods ad libitum (Aim 3a) and show greater future body fat gain (Aim 3b). Exploratory analyses will establish neural fingerprints that predict ad lib intake of ultra-processed foods and body fat gain (Aim 3c).
Aim 4: Test the hypothesis that participants who show the most pronounced reward cue learning in response to ultra-processed foods will consume more ultra-processed foods ad libitum (Aim 4a) and show greater future body fat gain (Aim 4b).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_ONLY
CROSS_SECTIONAL
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Adolescent youth age 13-15
age- and sex- adjusted body mass index (zBMI) scores between the 25th and 75th percentile
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* age- and sex- adjusted zBMI scores between the 25th and 75th percentile
* participant and their guardian must be able to read and speak English to gather valid consent
Exclusion Criteria
* fMRI contra-indicators (e.g., metal implants, braces, claustrophobia, pregnancy)
* serious medical problems (e.g., Type 2 diabetes, cancer)
* history of food allergies or restrictive dietary requirements (e.g., lactose intolerance, vegan)
* use of psychoactive drugs more than once weekly
* medications that impact appetite or reward functioning (e.g., metformin, anti-psychotic medication, insulin)
13 Years
15 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
OTHER
Oregon Research Institute
OTHER
Stanford University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Eric Stice
Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Eric Stice, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Stanford University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Stanford University
Stanford, California, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, Chung ST, Costa E, Courville A, Darcey V, Fletcher LA, Forde CG, Gharib AM, Guo J, Howard R, Joseph PV, McGehee S, Ouwerkerk R, Raisinger K, Rozga I, Stagliano M, Walter M, Walter PJ, Yang S, Zhou M. Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake. Cell Metab. 2019 Jul 2;30(1):67-77.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008. Epub 2019 May 16.
Demos KE, Heatherton TF, Kelley WM. Individual differences in nucleus accumbens activity to food and sexual images predict weight gain and sexual behavior. J Neurosci. 2012 Apr 18;32(16):5549-52. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5958-11.2012.
Stice E, Burger KS, Yokum S. Reward Region Responsivity Predicts Future Weight Gain and Moderating Effects of the TaqIA Allele. J Neurosci. 2015 Jul 15;35(28):10316-24. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3607-14.2015.
Yokum S, Gearhardt AN, Harris JL, Brownell KD, Stice E. Individual differences in striatum activity to food commercials predict weight gain in adolescents. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014 Dec;22(12):2544-51. doi: 10.1002/oby.20882. Epub 2014 Aug 25.
Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Grummer-Strawn LM, Flegal KM, Guo SS, Wei R, Mei Z, Curtin LR, Roche AF, Johnson CL. CDC growth charts: United States. Adv Data. 2000 Jun 8;(314):1-27.
Joyner MA, Gearhardt AN, Flagel SB. A Translational Model to Assess Sign-Tracking and Goal-Tracking Behavior in Children. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018 Jan;43(1):228-229. doi: 10.1038/npp.2017.196. No abstract available.
Stice E, Yokum S, Rohde P, Cloud K, Desjardins CD. Comparing healthy adolescent females with and without parental history of eating pathology on neural responsivity to food and thin models and other potential risk factors. J Abnorm Psychol. 2021 Aug;130(6):608-619. doi: 10.1037/abn0000686.
O'Doherty JP, Buchanan TW, Seymour B, Dolan RJ. Predictive neural coding of reward preference involves dissociable responses in human ventral midbrain and ventral striatum. Neuron. 2006 Jan 5;49(1):157-66. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.11.014.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
71541
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.