Responsiveness and Reliability of a Sipping Device to Measure Motivation in Normal-Weight Individuals and Bariatric Surgery Patients.

Jeon D Hamm, Blandine Laferr��re, Jeanine B Albu, Subhash Kini, Xavier Pi-Sunyer, Harry R Kissileff
Author Information
  1. Jeon D Hamm: Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC 20059, USA.
  2. Blandine Laferr��re: Division of Endocrinology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
  3. Jeanine B Albu: Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, New York, NY 10029, USA.
  4. Subhash Kini: Institute of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital, New York, NY 10025, USA.
  5. Xavier Pi-Sunyer: Division of Endocrinology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY 10032, USA.
  6. Harry R Kissileff: Diabetes, Obesity, & Metabolism Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.

Abstract

There is an urgent need to measure the motivation to taste a sweet fluid in order to determine the influence of sweet tastes on the potential choices and consumption of beverages in patients with obesity. Current methods utilize either survey instruments or arbitrary operant tasks. The sipometer enables the participant to utilize an actual ingestive behavioral response to measure motivation during access to beverages on either ad libitum (AL) or progressive time ratio (PR) schedules. We determined the sipometer'S responsiveness and reliability as a test of change in motivation for sweet tastes after bariatric surgery. Participants (58 patients and 28 controls, BMI: 18.5-24.9 kg/m) sham-consumed an aspartame-sweetened (S) and non-sweetened (N) beverage under AL and PR schedules at a pre-surgery/baseline and a 3-month and 24-month visit (patients only). Cumulative pressure (CumPres), a measure of effort, was the sum of the pressures exerted during sipping under each condition. Baseline CumPres for PRS was higher than ALS and ALN in patients ( < 0.03) and higher than PRN in controls ( = 0.009). At 3 months, CumPres did not differ amongst conditions in patients, but CumPres for PRS was higher than all other conditions in controls ( < 0.0005). There were no baseline group differences; however, patients' CumPres for PRS was lower than controls' at 3 months ( = 0.002). patients' CumPres for PRS decreased non-significantly between the baseline and 3 months but increased at 24 months compared to 3 months ( = 0.025) and was no different from baseline. Controls' CumPres for PRS increased at 3 months ( = 0.0359), but CumPres for all conditions was correlated between visits ('S < 0.038). The sipometer is a reliable and sensitive measure of motivation to consume sweet beverages and may reflect changes in post-operative energy intake.

Keywords

References

  1. Int J Obes (Lond). 2020 Jun;44(6):1350-1359 [PMID: 31641214]
  2. Appetite. 2016 Mar 1;98:133-41 [PMID: 26707654]
  3. Appetite. 2017 Feb 1;109:131-136 [PMID: 27884761]
  4. Obes Surg. 2022 Jul;32(7):1-12 [PMID: 35441332]
  5. Psychol Rev. 1956 May;63(3):195-203 [PMID: 13323175]
  6. Nutrients. 2020 Sep 04;12(9): [PMID: 32899675]
  7. Physiol Behav. 2020 Sep 1;223:113001 [PMID: 32522683]
  8. Physiol Behav. 2022 May 1;248:113728 [PMID: 35134394]
  9. Appetite. 2013 Mar;62:70-5 [PMID: 23178173]
  10. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2022 Mar 1;322(3):R204-R218 [PMID: 35043683]
  11. Nutrients. 2017 Jul 14;9(7): [PMID: 28708085]
  12. Physiol Behav. 2023 May 1;263:114113 [PMID: 36764423]
  13. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1954 Oct;47(5):349-54 [PMID: 13221678]
  14. Am J Clin Nutr. 1976 Jul;29(7):779-83 [PMID: 937232]
  15. J Clin Invest. 2020 Aug 3;130(8):4370-4381 [PMID: 32427584]
  16. Nutrients. 2017 Dec 24;10(1): [PMID: 29295558]
  17. Psychol Rev. 1960 Jul;67:253-68 [PMID: 14432499]
  18. Physiol Behav. 1990 Jun;47(6):1037-44 [PMID: 2395908]
  19. Nutrition. 2018 May;49:13-16 [PMID: 29571605]
  20. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2010 Oct;299(4):G967-79 [PMID: 20634436]
  21. Physiol Behav. 2017 Mar 15;171:216-227 [PMID: 28089706]
  22. Nutrition. 2012 Jan;28(1):53-8 [PMID: 21885246]
  23. Adv Nutr. 2017 Mar 15;8(2):382-394 [PMID: 28298280]
  24. Physiol Behav. 1998 Nov 15;65(2):393-6 [PMID: 9855493]
  25. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015 Nov;124(4):994-1002 [PMID: 26191637]
  26. Appetite. 1982 Jun;3(2):139-52 [PMID: 7137993]
  27. Physiol Behav. 2011 Oct 24;104(5):709-21 [PMID: 21827777]
  28. Appetite. 2012 Oct;59(2):414-8 [PMID: 22721907]
  29. Psychol Rev. 1950 Jan;57(1):19-26 [PMID: 15409077]
  30. Physiol Behav. 2003 Sep;79(4-5):663-70 [PMID: 12954407]
  31. Science. 1961 Sep 29;134(3483):943-4 [PMID: 13714876]
  32. Dev Psychobiol. 2004 Nov;45(3):125-33 [PMID: 15505801]
  33. Obes Surg. 2018 Jul;28(7):1910-1915 [PMID: 29417489]
  34. Nutrients. 2022 Feb 18;14(4): [PMID: 35215515]
  35. Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Feb;59(2):338-45 [PMID: 8310983]
  36. Endocrinol Metab (Seoul). 2021 Apr;36(2):209-219 [PMID: 33866777]
  37. Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Jun 17;8:228 [PMID: 24987343]
  38. Physiol Behav. 2021 Oct 1;239:113512 [PMID: 34217735]
  39. Appetite. 1981 Mar;2(1):67-73 [PMID: 7337440]
  40. Psychol Assess. 2022 May;34(5):419-430 [PMID: 35025580]
  41. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014 May;22(5):E13-20 [PMID: 24167016]
  42. Physiol Behav. 2009 Jan 8;96(1):44-50 [PMID: 18773914]
  43. Appetite. 2008 Jan;50(1):139-45 [PMID: 17655971]
  44. Physiol Behav. 2010 Aug 4;101(1):132-40 [PMID: 20438741]
  45. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1999;54(2):119-30 [PMID: 10646559]
  46. Psychol Sci. 2010 Nov;21(11):1656-63 [PMID: 20921573]
  47. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 2):R672-5 [PMID: 3140680]
  48. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2019 Spring;30(1):31-41 [PMID: 31170305]
  49. Int J Obes (Lond). 2022 Jun;46(6):1114-1121 [PMID: 35233038]
  50. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Sep;96(3):467-73 [PMID: 22836034]
  51. Obes Surg. 2018 Jul;28(7):2032-2039 [PMID: 29411241]
  52. Nutrients. 2023 Aug 22;15(17): [PMID: 37686704]
  53. Physiol Behav. 2006 Mar 30;87(3):602-6 [PMID: 16434068]
  54. Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;151:241-9 [PMID: 26820572]
  55. Appetite. 2018 Mar 1;122:44-50 [PMID: 28935479]
  56. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jun;95(6):666-70 [PMID: 7759742]
  57. JCI Insight. 2021 Aug 9;6(15): [PMID: 34369388]

Grants

  1. R01 DK108643/NIDDK NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Humans
Motivation
Bariatric Surgery
Female
Male
Adult
Reproducibility of Results
Middle Aged
Obesity
Taste
Beverages
Sweetening Agents
Feeding Behavior

Chemicals

Sweetening Agents

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CumPres0monthspatientsPRS3measuremotivationsweet=beveragescontrolshigher<conditionsbaselinetastesutilizeeithersipometerALPRschedulesbariatricsurgeryincreasedMotivationurgentneedtastefluidorderdetermineinfluencepotentialchoicesconsumptionobesityCurrentmethodssurveyinstrumentsarbitraryoperanttasksenablesparticipantactualingestivebehavioralresponseaccessadlibitumprogressivetimeratiodeterminedsipometer'sresponsivenessreliabilitytestchangeParticipants5828BMI:185-249kg/msham-consumedaspartame-sweetenedSnon-sweetenedNbeveragepre-surgery/baseline3-month24-monthvisitCumulativepressureeffortsumpressuresexertedsippingconditionBaselineALSALN03PRN009differamongst0005groupdifferenceshoweverpatients'lowercontrols'002Patients'decreasednon-significantly24compared025differentControls'0359correlatedvisits's038reliablesensitiveconsumemayreflectchangespost-operativeenergyintakeResponsivenessReliabilitySippingDeviceMeasureNormal-WeightIndividualsBariatricSurgeryPatientsprogressive-ratiosweet-taste

Similar Articles

Cited By