PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 2026International Journal of Eating Disorders0 citations

Neurocognitive Profile of Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder: Cognitive Flexibility, Delay Discounting, and Detail Orientation

View Full Paper
IMIman McPhersonADArthur J. DaltonKAKelly Armstrong

Key Points

  • This research aims to explore the neurocognitive profile of adults with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) compared to healthy controls.
  • Participants included adults with ARFID (n=49) and healthy controls (n=21).
  • Computerized tasks assessed cognitive flexibility, delay discounting, and detail orientation.
  • Statistical analyses included U-tests and regression to evaluate group differences and performance variance.
  • Adults with ARFID showed larger response-time switch costs indicating strategic slowing in cognitive flexibility.
  • No significant differences were found in delay discounting or detail orientation between groups.
  • ARFID severity explained variations in cognitive performance, linking greater fear of consequences to better set-shifting.

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective Neurocognitive deficits are well‐documented across psychiatric disorders and may indicate novel treatment targets. However, empirical data on the neurocognitive profile of avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) are lacking. To address this gap, this study examined three core neurocognitive domains altered in other eating disorders—cognitive flexibility, delay discounting, and detail orientation—in adults with ARFID and healthy controls (HCs). Method Adults (18–45 years) with ARFID ( n = 49) and HCs ( n = 21) completed computerized tasks assessing cognitive flexibility (Category Switch Task), delay discounting (Delay Discounting Task), and detail orientation (Navon Task). We hypothesized that, relative to HCs, adults with ARFID would show poorer cognitive flexibility, steeper delay discounting, and greater detail orientation. Results Compared to HCs, adults with ARFID showed larger response‐time switch costs ( U = 9456, p = 0.023) but smaller error‐rate switch costs ( U = 6832, p = 0.044). Consequently, set‐shifting efficiency did not differ between groups (inverse efficiency score switch costs: U = 537, p = 0.672), indicating an accuracy‐over‐speed strategy supporting cognitive flexibility in ARFID. No group differences emerged in delay discounting ( U = 618, p = 0.091) or detail orientation ( U = 8016, p = 0.938). Regression analyses indicated that ARFID phenotype severity explained variance in task performance: greater fear of aversive consequences was associated with better set‐shifting ( p = 0.005), and greater lack of interest with reduced delay discounting ( p = 0.004). Discussion Contrary to expectations, adults with ARFID matched HCs in overall cognitive flexibility efficiency by strategically slowing responses, challenging assumptions of innate cognitive rigidity. Future research should test whether interventions that increase processing speed while preserving accuracy could improve everyday adaptability and eating behaviors in ARFID.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

McPherson et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69cd7e935652765b073a9795https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.70077
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper