↓ Skip to main content

Perceptual Characterization of the Macronutrient Picture System (MaPS) for Food Image fMRI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptual Characterization of the Macronutrient Picture System (MaPS) for Food Image fMRI
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill L. King, S. Nicole Fearnbach, Sreekrishna Ramakrishnapillai, Preetham Shankpal, Paula J. Geiselman, Corby K. Martin, Kori B. Murray, Jason L. Hicks, F. Joseph McClernon, John W. Apolzan, Owen T. Carmichael

Abstract

Food image fMRI paradigms are used widely for investigating the neural basis of ingestive behavior. However, these paradigms have not been validated in terms of ingestive behavior constructs, engagement of food-relevant neural systems, or test-retest reliability, making the generalizability of study findings unclear. Therefore, we validated the Macronutrient Picture System (MaPS) (McClernon et al., 2013), which includes food images from the six categories represented in the Geiselman Food Preference Questionnaire (FPQ) (Geiselman et al., 1998). Twenty-five healthy young adults (n = 21 female, mean age = 20.6 ± 1.1 years, mean BMI = 22.1 ± 1.9 kg/m2) rated the MaPS images in terms of visual interest, appetitive quality, nutrition, emotional valence, liking, and frequency of consumption, and completed the FPQ. In a second study, 12 individuals (n=8 female, mean age = 25.0 ± 6.5 years, mean BMI = 28.2 ± 8.7 kg/m2) viewed MaPS and control images (vegetables and non-food) during two separate 3T BOLD fMRI scans after fasting overnight. Intuitively, high fat/high sugar (HF/HS) and high fat/high complex carbohydrate (HF/HCCHO) images achieved higher liking and appetitive ratings, and lower nutrition ratings, than low fat/low complex carbohydrate/high protein (LF/LCHO/HP) images on average. Within each food category, FPQ scores correlated strongly with MaPS image liking ratings (p < 0.001). Brain activation differences between viewing images of HF/HS and vegetables, and between HF/HCCHO and vegetables, were seen in several reward-related brain regions (e.g., putamen, insula, and medial frontal gyrus). Intra-individual, inter-scan agreement in a summary measure of brain activation differences in seven reward network regions of interest was high (ICC = 0.61), and was even higher when two distinct sets of food images with matching visual ratings were shown in the two scans (ICC = 0.74). These results suggest that the MaPS provides valid representation of food categories and reliably activates food-reward-relevant neural systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 27%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Professor 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,960
of 30,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,603
of 440,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#404
of 540 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,570 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 540 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.