The effects of isolated game elements on adherence rates in food-based response inhibition traininguse asterix (*) to get italics

Alexander MacLellan, Charlotte Pennington, Natalia Lawrence, Samuel Westwood, Andrew Jones, Katherine ButtonPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

2023

<p>Introduction: Poor diet, and the consumption of foods high in fat, sugar and salt are common causes of premature mortality and health conditions. Computerised response inhibition training has been proposed to devalue these foods by learning to inhibit motor responses, with effects found for both weight loss and snacking reduction. However, these interventions are repetitive by nature and suffer from a lack of adherence, leading some to propose gamification as a solution to increase engagement. The effect of gamification is unclear, with a lack of research investigating the effects of single game elements at improving adherence to interventions. The current study aims to investigate whether isolated common game elements improve adherence, engagement and effectiveness of computerised food response inhibition training compared to a standard non-gamified intervention. &nbsp; Methods: A sample of participants were randomly assigned to either a standard non-gamified food response inhibition training, a training gamified with feedback elements, or a training gamified with social elements. Participants completed measures of snacking frequency and food evaluation before and after a 14-day training period, during which they were instructed to complete their assigned training.&nbsp;</p>

Cognitive Training, Eating Behaviour, mHealth, Behaviour Change, Obesity

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Social sciences

Joel Billieux suggested: Sorry - there is just too much on my pile those days, I cannot perform this additional review. I can suggest Damien.Brevers@uclouvain.be as a potential reivewers. Best regards, Joel Billieux, Lucy Porter [l.m.porter@lboro.ac.uk] suggested: Hi there, , Lucy Porter [l.m.porter@lboro.ac.uk] suggested: Thank you for inviting me to review this report, and apologies for declining. I have worked closely with many of the study authors, which could have impacted the impartiality of my review. , Lucy Porter [l.m.porter@lboro.ac.uk] suggested: I would like to suggest evan.forman@drexel.edu as someone who I believe has expertise in this area and has not worked closely with these authors. , Lucy Porter [l.m.porter@lboro.ac.uk] suggested: many thanks, , Lucy Porter [l.m.porter@lboro.ac.uk] suggested: Lucy

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

2023-07-14 16:24:03

Mateo Leganes-Fonteneau