The teens reported on how much they agreed with statements like, "Immigrants often come here just to take advantage of welfare in Sweden," with results averaged into an anti-immigrant bias score.
In the fed condition, obese individuals showed a significant bias to direct gaze at food, relative to non-food, images, as shown by a one-sample t-test which contrasted their mean direction bias score against a value of zero, t(17)=4.75, P<0.001; whereas normal-weight individuals showed a nonsignificant trend to direct their gaze away from food (one-sample t(17)=2.04, P=0.057).
The Cochrane risk of bias score for each citation varied across the studies (Additional file 2: Table S2).
Low risk of bias (the plus sign); unclear risk of bias (the question mark sign) Fig. 3 Overall risk of bias score for each field.
These ratings use an independent risk of bias score see Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins and Green 2011) and the full report for more details [insert web link to report here].
Quality was assessed by the risk of bias score from the Downs and Black Quality Index, where studies that scored from 0 to 6 were classified as "high risk of bias" and very low quality, from 7 to 13 as "moderate risk of bias" and low quality, and from 14 to 20 as "low risk of bias" and high quality.
Further one-sample t-tests were conducted to test if the bias score significantly differed from zero.
Based on signal detection theory, a discrimination score (P A)) and a response bias score (B) is calculated.
In both experiments, a food bias score was computed to reflect the speed advantage (in ms) for detecting food vs. nonfood targets.
Importantly, BMI was not significantly correlated with the bias score for recognition (i.e., time from 1st fixation on target until response), p = .18.18
