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
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Retraining
1.85
-8.44 – 12.13
Control Sham
4.27
-6.25 – 14.80
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)Primary· 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 i
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.010
-0.027 – 0.048
AB Retraining
.021
-0.014 – 0.056
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.032
-0.011 – 0.075
AB Retraining
0.023
-0.017 – 0.063
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
-0.007
-0.055 – 0.041
AB Retraining
0.038
-0.006 – 0.083
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.028
-0.022 – 0.078
AB Retraining
0.009
-0.037 – 0.056
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
-0.013
-0.056 – 0.030
AB Retraining
0.046
0.006 – 0.086
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.017
-0.029 – 0.063
AB Retraining
0.020
-0.022 – 0.063
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.035
-0.009 – 0.078
AB Retraining
-0.041
-0.081 – -0.001
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.053
0.011 – 0.095
AB Retraining
0.002
-0.037 – 0.041
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.012
-0.030 – 0.055
AB Retraining
0.012
-0.027 – 0.051
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
0.002
-0.034 – 0.039
AB Retraining
-0.024
-0.058 – 0.010
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)Primary· 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.
Group
Value
95% CI
AB Control
-0.010
-0.050 – 0.030
AB Retraining
0.026
-0.011 – 0.063
Adverse events — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov
Time frame: 2 weeks.
Reporting threshold: 0%.
Adverse-event reports describe events observed during the trial — not all are caused by the drug.
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.
Publications & conference data
5 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
NCT07403604 — Effect of Insulin Lowering on Lipogenesis
· Phase 1
· recruiting
NCT07509307 — AMAZE 6: A Research Study Investigating How Well the Medicine NNC0487-0111 Helps People With Excess Body Weight and Knee
· Phase 3
· recruiting
NCT07272837 — Impact of Semaglutide (Ozempic/Wegovy®) on Heart and Muscle Mass
· recruiting
NCT07481630 — A Research Study Investigating How Well the Medicine NNC0487-0111 Helps People With Excess Body Weight and Knee Osteoart
· Phase 3
· recruiting
NCT07527195 — Understanding the Effect of CagriSema, Cagrilintide, and Semaglutide on Muscle Health (Role of Amylin Signature in Muscl
· Phase 1
· recruiting
Other Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) trials
Publications: Europe PMC API search by NCT ID, retrieved 10 June 2026
Drug + disease cross-links: matched in real time against Drug Landscape's normalised drug + company + condition tables
Sponsor: as reported to ClinicalTrials.gov by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
Last refreshed: 31 May 2025
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT02977403.