Binge Eating, Healthy Volunteers, Obesity, Overweight
Conditions
Keywords
Binge Eating, Eating Behavior, Children, Magnetoencephalography, Loss of Control
Brief summary
Background: People are constantly exposed to unhealthy foods. Some studies of adults show that training attention away from unhealthy foods might reduce overeating. Researchers want to see what happens in the brain when teens train their attention away from food through a program on a smartphone. Objective: To study the relationship between eating patterns, body weight, and how the brain reacts to different images. Eligibility: Right-handed females ages 12-17 who are overweight (Body Mass Index at or above the 85th percentile for age). Design: Participants will have 6 visits over about 8 months. Visit 1: participants will be screened with: Height, weight, blood pressure, and waist size measurements Medical history Physical exam Urine sample DXA scan. Participants will lie on a table while a very small dose of x-rays passes through the body. Questions about their general health, social and psychological functioning, and eating habits Parents or guardians of minor participants will answer questions about their child s functioning and demographic data. Before visits 2-6, participants will not eat or drink for about 12 hours. These visits will include some or all of these procedures: Blood drawn MRI scan. Participants will lie on a stretcher that slides in and out of a metal cylinder in a strong magnetic field. A device will be placed over the head. Meals provided. Participants will fill out rating forms. Simple thinking tasks A cone containing magnetic field detectors placed onto the head Medical history Physical exam Urine sample Participants will be assigned to a 2-week smartphone program that involves looking at pictures. Participants will complete short tasks and answer some questions about their eating habits and mood on the smartphone.
Detailed description
Over 30% of adolescents are overweight and 20% are obese, but the mechanisms that produce excessive weight gain in youth remain incompletely elucidated. Some overweight youth appear to have an attention bias (AB: a tendency to attend selectively to stimuli that have acquired salience or meaning) toward highly palatable food that may lead to overeating. AB involves distinct cognitive processes, (1) unconscious reactions (UCR), reflecting initial attention capture evoked by salient stimuli, and (2) continued attention deployment (AD) to stimuli relevant to current goals. These rapidly evolving processes are associated with unique neurocircuitry best measured using high spatial resolution and temporal sensitivity. Magnetoencephalography (MEG) is a novel neuroimaging technology that has both excellent temporal and good spatial resolution, thus is uniquely and ideally suited to study neurocognitive mechanisms of AB. Reducing AB to palatable foods may help some overweight youth curb their consumption of energy-dense options. Attention retraining (AR) programs can be used to reduce AB and have been effective in reducing AB to unhealthy food in adults. Although most AR studies involve computers in the laboratory, using smartphones in the natural environment may be a particularly effective method to deliver AR to adolescents and measure AB using ecological momentary assessment. The first aim of the proposed study is to investigate, using MEG, the impact of a 2-week smartphone AR program on neural responses to food cues in overweight adolescent (12-17 y/o) girls with and without loss of control (LOC) eating, defined as a subjective experience of a lack of control over what or how much one is eating. LOC is a distinct eating behavior phenotype in youth that is a risk factor for excess weight gain and disordered eating, and is much more prevalent among girls (vs. boys). Overweight youth who report LOC may be particularly susceptible to AB. Additionally, adults with LOC demonstrate AB toward socially threatening cues, such as angry or disapproving faces, and the AB to social threat may be relevant to the relationship between AB to food and overweight. The second goal is to examine the effect of the 2-week AR program on AB, food intake, and body composition. An exploratory aim is to examine whether AB to socially threatening cues, moderates the effects of this novel intervention on AB to food cues, food intake, and body composition. The proposed study is innovative because no study to date has examined neurocircuitry of ABs to food using MEG, nor examined the impact of AR delivered in the natural environment on neurocircuitry of AB in a group of youth prone to AB. These studies may help further characterize phenomenology of distinct obesity subtypes and may potentially identify an approach that could prevent undue weight gain in adolescent girls at risk for obesity.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALAttention Bias Retraining
Attention retraining program on smartphone where the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location.
BEHAVIORALSham Comparator: AB Control
Sham Comparator training where the probe randomly replaces the neutral or food pictures. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location
Sponsors
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Assignment to intervention or control made by a person who has no contact with study subjects to place the appropriate program on the phone used by the subject. Blind was maintained until all subjects had completed all assessments for the randomized phase.
Intervention model description
Overweight youth with loss of control over eating randomized to intervention or control groups Overweight youth without loss of control over eating randomized to intervention or control groups
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
FEMALE
Age
12 Years to 21 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* INCLUSION CRITERIA: Volunteers will qualify if they meet the following criteria: 1. Age between 12 and 17 years (at the start of the study). 2. Female sex. 3. BMI at or above the 85th percentile for age and sex according to the Centers for Disease Control US Standards (101). 4. Right handedness. LOC sample only: 5. Greater than or equal to 1 episodes of LOC eating during the past month prior to assessment, assessed using a clinical diagnostic interview for eating disorders. No-LOC sample only: 6. No episodes of LOC eating during the past month prior to assessment, assessed using a clinical diagnostic interview for eating disorders.
Exclusion criteria
Individuals will be excluded (and provided treatment referrals as needed) for the following reasons: 1. An obesity-related health comorbidity requiring medical treatment, such as hypertension (defined by age-, sex-, and height-specific standards) or fasting hyperglycemia consistent with diabetes. 2. Presence of other major illnesses: renal, hepatic, gastrointestinal, most endocrinologic (e.g., Cushing syndrome, untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism), hematological problems or pulmonary disorders (other than asthma not requiring continuous medication). Nonserious medical illnesses, such as seasonal allergies, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 3. Regular use of any medication known to affect body weight or eating behavior (e.g., stimulants prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD). Medication use for non-serious conditions (e.g., acne) will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 4. Current pregnancy or a history of pregnancy. 5. A significant reduction in weight during the past three months, for any reason, exceeding 5% of body weight. 6. Presence in the child of any significant, full-threshold psychiatric disorder based on DSM criteria (102), such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcohol or substance abuse, anorexia or bulimia nervosa, or any other disorder that, in the opinion of the investigators, would impede competence or compliance or possibly hinder completion of the study. These individuals will not be permitted to enroll in the current study and will be referred for treatment. Individuals who present with other psychiatric disorders, including subthreshold psychiatric disorders, will be permitted to enroll in the study. If, based on the opinion of the investigators, a participant requires treatment for his/her psychiatric symptoms, the individual will be referred for treatment. Participants who develop any psychiatric disorder or significant psychiatric symptoms at any follow-up assessment during the study will be excluded and be provided with treatment referrals. 7. Current and regular substance use, including the use of alcohol and/or tobacco products (including e-cigarettes). 8. A history of significant or recent brain injury that may considerably influence performance (i.e., any history of loss of consciousness greater than or equal to 30 minutes associated with a head injury, any history of memory loss or hospitalization associated with a head injury, or greater than or equal to 2 concussions within last year). 9. Current involvement in a weight loss program, participating in psychotherapy aimed at weight loss or treatment of eating behavior (e.g., binge eating). 10. All parents/guardians will be asked to indicate if their child has any food allergies. To be conservative, children who report allergies to gluten, nuts, dairy, fruit, or any other item in the array, will be excluded from the test meal portion of the study. 11. A condition under which MEG is contradicted (e.g., metal in the body, pregnancy, claustrophobia, history of significant neurological insult or injury). 12. Non-English speaking participants will be excluded from the study as they may be unable to complete questionnaires and follow the instructions which are only provided in English.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time | 2-weeks | AB was obtained for each stimulus pairing (High-Palatability Food \[HPF\] minus Non-Food \[NF\] image, Low-Palatability Food \[LPF\] minus NF image, HPF minus LPF image). Trials where the probe appeared behind the more food-salient cue (e.g., a HPF image, or LPF vs NF image) were considered congruent trials. Trials where the probe appeared behind the less salient cue (e.g., NF image, or LPF image when the other image was a HPF image) were considered incongruent trials. The average reaction time during incongruent trials was subtracted from reaction time during during congruent trials. Positive scores represent a quicker reaction time for (and bias towards) the more palatable stimulus, and negative scores represent a slower reaction time for (and bias away from) the more palatable stimulus. A difference score of 0 represents no bias towards or away from the more palatable stimulus. Only trials with correct responses for the direction of the probe were included in computations. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power at the caudate left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). Oscillatory power was normalized as per NeuroImage 39 (2008) pp 1788-1802, by estimating noise power as ρθ = WθTΣWθ (where Wθ is a (M × 1) column vector of weighting parameters that are tuned specifically to the location and orientation represented by θ, Σ represents the noise covariance matrix and ρθ is the beamformer-projected sensor noise power at the location and orientation θ). Within each stimuli-pairing and attention phase, oscillatory power during the incongruent trials was divided by oscillatory power during the congruent trials, then log transformed. Given a ratio was used, the oscillator power outcomes are unitless. Change in power (post-intervention minus pre-intervention) was calculated. Positive changes represent an increase in oscillatory power from pre- to post intervention. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Neural activity during a food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the the caudate left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
| Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 2-weeks | Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes | 2-weeks | Frequency of self-reported loss-of-control eating episodes measured via the Eating Disorder Examination Interview at the baseline visit and post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit). |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
Participants were recruited from 2/10/2017 to 4/27/2023 from the local community by advertisements sent by mail and posted flyers.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| AB Control Control condition - the probe is equally likely to replace the food picture and the neutral picture. There is no correlation between picture type and probe location, and no training of attention should occur.
Attention Bias Retraining: Attention retraining program on smartphone where the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. | 36 |
| AB Retraining Active treatment - the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location.
Attention Bias Retraining: Attention retraining program on smartphone where the probe always replaces the neutral picture. There is a perfect correlation between picture type and probe location. | 32 |
| Total | 68 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | AB Retraining | Total | AB Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 15.0 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6 | 14.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6 | 14.9 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.7 |
| Body Mass Index Z-score | 1.80 Z-score STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.55 | 1.84 Z-score STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 1.88 Z-score STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants | 9 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 27 Participants | 54 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 2 Participants | 5 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Fat Mass | 33.8 Kg STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.4 | 33.7 Kg STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.8 | 33.6 Kg STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.3 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 18 Participants | 37 Participants | 19 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 5 Participants | 7 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 8 Participants | 22 Participants | 14 Participants |
| Recent Loss Of Control Eating | 9 Participants | 20 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 32 participants | 68 participants | 36 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 32 Participants | 68 Participants | 36 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 32 | 0 / 36 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 4 / 32 | 2 / 36 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 32 | 0 / 36 |
Outcome results
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.035 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.041 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.149, 0.065]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.266, 0.131]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.026 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.069 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.123, 0.041]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.213, 0.021]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.053 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.002 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.122, 0.053]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.233, 0.092]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.058 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.028 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.142, 0.066]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.29, 0.097]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.026 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.020 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.125, 0.052]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.196, 0.129]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.016 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.012 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.069, 0.091]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.332, -0.002]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.027 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.031 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.091, 0.093]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.286, 0.001]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudal dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.005 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudal Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.006 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.037, 0.146]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.127, 0.09]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power at the caudate left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). Oscillatory power was normalized as per NeuroImage 39 (2008) pp 1788-1802, by estimating noise power as ρθ = WθTΣWθ (where Wθ is a (M × 1) column vector of weighting parameters that are tuned specifically to the location and orientation represented by θ, Σ represents the noise covariance matrix and ρθ is the beamformer-projected sensor noise power at the location and orientation θ). Within each stimuli-pairing and attention phase, oscillatory power during the incongruent trials was divided by oscillatory power during the congruent trials, then log transformed. Given a ratio was used, the oscillator power outcomes are unitless. Change in power (post-intervention minus pre-intervention) was calculated. Positive changes represent an increase in oscillatory power from pre- to post intervention.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.010 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | .021 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.025, 0.119]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.288, 0.019]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the the caudate left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.012 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.052 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.092, 0.05]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.249, 0.056]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.032 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.023 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.085, 0.082]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.177, 0.071]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the caudate right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.030 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Caudate Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.031 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.095, 0.069]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.227, 0.071]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Neural activity during a food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.010 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.026 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.03, 0.185]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.346, -0.047]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.021 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.062 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.091, 0.091]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.157, 0.149]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.026 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.001 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.01, 0.175]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.204, 0.107]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the lateral orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.012 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.002 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.092, 0.071]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.126, 0.183]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.010 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.018 unitless |
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.163, 0.177]
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.032, 0.123]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.018 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.038 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.101, 0.076]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.273, 0.06]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.018 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.011 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.03, 0.112]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.168, 0.14]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the medial orbitofrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.041 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Medial Orbitofrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.009 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.11, 0.043]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.335, 0.003]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.007 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.038 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.022, 0.182]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.139, 0.103]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.011 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.051 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.103, 0.092]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.173, 0.11]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.028 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.009 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.086, 0.113]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.179, 0.109]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pallidum right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.037 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pallidum Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.026 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.069, 0.109]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.252, 0.077]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.010 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.069 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.004, 0.174]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.159, 0.201]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.043 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.054 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.097, 0.066]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.314, -0.01]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.037 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.031 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.113, 0.081]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.206, 0.062]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars opercularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.001 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Opercularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.018 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.051, 0.156]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.251, 0.111]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.019 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.019 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.049, 0.209]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.33, -0.033]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.013 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.052 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.061, 0.091]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.26, 0.044]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.011 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.016 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.045, 0.207]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.223, 0.112]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars orbitalis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.027 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Orbitalis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.023 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.047, 0.119]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.276, 0.064]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.015 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.064 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [0.027, 0.203]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.203, 0.087]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus).The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.023 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.071 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.092, 0.057]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.15, 0.153]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.022 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.016 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.053, 0.127]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.24, 0.069]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the pars triangularis right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.009 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Pars Triangularis Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.013 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.019, 0.159]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.26, 0.07]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.013 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.046 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.001, 0.167]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.201, 0.063]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.0005 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.062 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.099, 0.08]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.294, -0.017]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.017 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.020 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.059, 0.121]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.157, 0.152]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the putamen right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.018 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Putamen Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.031 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.069, 0.095]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.216, 0.047]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere - during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.012 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere - During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.012 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.041, 0.126]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.252, 0.082]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.005 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.030 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.105, 0.059]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.277, 0.029]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.002 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.024 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.06, 0.102]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.26, 0.119]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral anterior cingulate cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.032 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Anterior Cingulate Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.012 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.14, 0.027]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.302, -0.02]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.006 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.033 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.001, 0.132]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.246, 0.055]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.015 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.031 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.061, 0.065]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.215, 0.042]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.014 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.008 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.055, 0.101]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.178, 0.137]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the rostral dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.010 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Rostral Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.006 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.05, 0.115]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.248, 0.058]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.021 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | -0.013 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.116, 0.051]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.104, 0.223]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex left hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.004 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Left Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | -0.022 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.075, 0.042]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.13, 0.18]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention capture (0-250ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.041 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Capture (0-250ms Following Stimulus) | 0.019 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.078, 0.053]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.248, 0.12]
Primary
Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus)
Change in beta band (13-35 Hz) oscillatory power during food-cue visual probe attention bias task completed at the baseline laboratory visit vs. post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit) at the superior dorsolateral prefrontal cortex right hemisphere during attention deployment (250-500ms following stimulus). The same analysis procedure was followed as described in detail for the first primary outcome.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Equipment failure meant many participants did not have data for this analysis
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.023 unitless |
| Control Sham | Change in Beta Band (13-35 Hz) Oscillatory Power During Food-cue Visual Probe Attention Bias Task in the Superior Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Right Hemisphere During Attention Deployment (250-500ms Following Stimulus) | 0.010 unitless |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-0.039, 0.099]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-0.335, 0.049]
Primary
Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time
AB was obtained for each stimulus pairing (High-Palatability Food \[HPF\] minus Non-Food \[NF\] image, Low-Palatability Food \[LPF\] minus NF image, HPF minus LPF image). Trials where the probe appeared behind the more food-salient cue (e.g., a HPF image, or LPF vs NF image) were considered congruent trials. Trials where the probe appeared behind the less salient cue (e.g., NF image, or LPF image when the other image was a HPF image) were considered incongruent trials. The average reaction time during incongruent trials was subtracted from reaction time during during congruent trials. Positive scores represent a quicker reaction time for (and bias towards) the more palatable stimulus, and negative scores represent a slower reaction time for (and bias away from) the more palatable stimulus. A difference score of 0 represents no bias towards or away from the more palatable stimulus. Only trials with correct responses for the direction of the probe were included in computations.
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Computer failures led to missing data for many participants. There were interruptions in data recording during magnetoencephalography sessions that were not predictable due to equipment failures.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) |
|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time | 1.85 Change in milliseconds |
| Control Sham | Changes in Food-cue Visual Probe Task Attention Bias (AB) Reaction Time | 4.27 Change in milliseconds |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in AB following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.95% CI: [-20.79, 16.894]
Comparison: Interaction of Loss of Control Eating with attention bias. See Statistical Analysis 1 for details.95% CI: [-35.28, 33.377]
Secondary
Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes
Frequency of self-reported loss-of-control eating episodes measured via the Eating Disorder Examination Interview at the baseline visit and post-EMA intervention visit (conducted 2 weeks after the baseline visit).
Time frame: 2-weeks
Population: Some subjects withdrew before completion of the post-smartphone visit.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB Retraining | Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes | .731 eating episode (count) | Standard Deviation 2.3189 |
| Control Sham | Frequency of Loss-of-control Eating Episodes | .827 eating episode (count) | Standard Deviation 1.968 |
Comparison: Sample size estimation was based on the power analysis for the first hypothesis (examine changes in oscillatory power following completion of the smartphone program). Assuming 35% attrition, 80 girls, 40 with LOC-eating and 40 without LOC-eating, were estimated to provide \>80% power to detect medium to large effects.p-value: 0.256Generalized estimation equations