Satiety Response

Abstract

The satiety response, which MeSH classifies as a form of satiation, is the coordinated set of behavioural and physiological changes by which the end of eating is expressed and the interval before the next meal maintained. Where satiation names the process that closes a meal, the satiety response is its measurable output: the orderly shift from eating to grooming to rest, the fall in subjective appetite, and the post-ingestive hormonal and neural signals that accompany them. In rodents this output takes a stereotyped form, the behavioural satiety sequence, whose preservation distinguishes genuine satiety from feeding suppressed by illness or sedation. In humans it is quantified by rating scales, by caloric compensation in test meals after a preload, and by the satiety quotient. This article covers its components, its measurement, and its dysregulation in obesity, with three interactive demonstrations.

Keywords: satiety response, behavioural satiety sequence, satiation

What the Satiety Response Is

The satiety response is the observable expression of fullness: the ensemble of behavioural and physiological changes that follow ingestion and bring eating to an end. It is the measurable counterpart of the internal states that control meal size, and it is the behavioural output by which both satiation — the within-meal process that terminates eating — and satiety — the between-meal state that delays the next meal — are quantified (#ref-benelam-2009). Keeping the response distinct from the states it expresses matters: fullness is a private experience, but the satiety response is public and measurable, and it is the response, not the experience, that the laboratory records.

Woods framed the useful contrast between a behavioural and a molecular reading of this output. The behavioural perspective treats the satiety response as a functional act — the animal stops eating, grooms, and settles — organised to defend energy balance; the molecular perspective traces the same act to the gut and brain signals that produce it (#ref-woods-2009). The two are not rivals but descriptions at different levels of the same event, and a complete account of the satiety response must join them, reading the molecular signals as the causes of the behavioural output.

The response is also graded and multi-channel rather than a single switch. Appetite does not collapse to zero at a meal's end; it declines by a measurable amount, over a measurable time, through several partly independent channels — the pleasantness of the food just eaten, the motivation to begin again, and the physiological markers of a meal absorbed (#ref-smith-1996). This is why the satiety response is characterised by a profile of measures rather than a single number, and why no one index fully captures it.

The Behavioural Satiety Sequence

The clearest demonstration that a satiety response is a structured behavioural event, not merely the cessation of eating, comes from the behavioural satiety sequence (BSS). In a freely behaving rodent, a meal is followed by a reliable, ordered progression of activities: active eating gives way to grooming and exploratory activity, which in turn give way to resting and sleep. This sequence — eat, groom, rest — is the behavioural signature of a satisfied animal, and its orderly unfolding is what marks the termination of eating as a genuine satiety response (#ref-antin-1975).

The sequence earned its diagnostic power from a specific experimental problem. Many manipulations reduce food intake, but for very different reasons: a true satiety signal ends a meal as satiety would, whereas a toxin, a stressor, or a sedative ends it by making the animal ill or unable to eat. Antin and colleagues showed that cholecystokinin (CCK), a gut peptide released during digestion, elicits the complete behavioural sequence of satiety — the treated animal stops eating and then grooms and rests in the normal order, exactly as a naturally sated animal does (#ref-antin-1975). A compound that merely poisoned the animal would suppress eating too, but it would disrupt the sequence, producing resting without the intervening grooming phase, or lying flat in a posture of illness rather than the relaxed rest that follows a meal.

Halford and colleagues formalised this logic into a method. By recording the time an animal spends in each behavioural category across the post-meal period, the BSS can be used to diagnose the action of a drug on food intake: an anorectic agent that advances the normal sequence — bringing on grooming and rest earlier, in the correct order — is acting through a satiety-like mechanism, whereas one that abolishes or reorders the sequence is suppressing intake through malaise or motor impairment (#ref-halford-1998). The distinction is central to appetite pharmacology, because only a drug that engages the genuine satiety response is a candidate for safe appetite control. The demonstration below lets the sequence be assembled and disrupted directly.

Components of the Satiety Response

The satiety response is best analysed as three measurable components that normally move together but can be dissociated: the subjective, the behavioural, and the physiological.

The subjective component is the conscious experience of diminished appetite — reduced hunger, increased fullness, and a fall in the desire to eat and in prospective consumption. In humans this is read directly from appetite ratings, and the decline in these ratings across and after a meal is the most immediate index of the response (#ref-blundell-2010). The behavioural component is the observable act: the cessation of eating that sets meal size, and, in animals, the post-meal sequence of grooming and rest. These two are not identical; a food can terminate a meal without producing a strong subjective sense of fullness, and the gap between them is itself informative.

The physiological component is the richest. Mechanical and chemical signals from the gut report the arrival of food and feed back to the brain to end the meal. Gastric distension provides a volume signal; the duodenum releases cholecystokinin in response to fat and protein, which acts on vagal afferents to curtail eating (#ref-gibbs-1973); the distal gut releases peptide YY, which physiologically inhibits food intake (#ref-batterham-2002); and the L-cells secrete glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), which promotes satiety and suppresses energy intake in humans (#ref-flint-1998). These short-term meal-related signals operate against a background of longer-term adiposity signals, principally leptin and the hunger-promoting hormone ghrelin, which set the sensitivity of the meal-ending system to the body's energy stores (#ref-klok-2007). Smith's framework organises these into direct controls, which act on the positive feedback that drives eating, and indirect controls, which modulate them (#ref-smith-1996), and Cummings and Overduin's synthesis traces how the gastrointestinal signals are integrated to regulate intake (#ref-cummings-overduin-2007).

Two further signals shape the response before and around the meal. Cephalic-phase responses — the anticipatory secretions triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food — prime the physiology of digestion and satiety before a bite is swallowed (#ref-power-schulkin-2008), and the sensory qualities of the food, particularly its smell and taste, modulate how the response develops (#ref-boesveldt-degraaf-2017). The specifically sensory side of the response is sharpest in sensory-specific satiety: the pleasantness of a food that has been eaten to fullness declines selectively for that food while appetite for others persists, the finding Rolls and colleagues established and named (#ref-rolls-1981). All of these channels are routed through the gut-brain axis, whose vagal and hypothalamic circuitry Berthoud has mapped, and whose arbitration between metabolic need and hedonic pull determines whether the satiety response is heeded or overridden (#ref-berthoud-2011).

The principal physiological signals, their source, and their action on the response are set out in Table 1.

These short-term and longer-term signals are organised in time by the satiety cascade, the sequence of sensory, cognitive, post-ingestive, and post-absorptive processes that bridge from the start of one meal to the beginning of the next (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Measuring the Satiety Response

Because the response has several components, it is measured by a battery of complementary methods rather than a single assay (#ref-blundell-2010). Subjective appetite is tracked with visual-analogue scales, on which a participant marks hunger, fullness, and desire to eat at intervals before and after a test food; the area under the resulting appetite-versus-time curve summarises the subjective response. Physiological markers are sampled in parallel — plasma CCK, PYY, GLP-1, and ghrelin — and de Graaf and colleagues catalogued which of these biomarkers reliably track satiation and satiety and which do not, a prerequisite for using any of them as a surrogate endpoint (#ref-degraaf-2004).

The central behavioural measure is caloric compensation in the preload paradigm. A fixed preload of known energy is given, and intake at a later test meal is measured; if the satiety response is working, the test meal shrinks to offset the preload's energy. Perfect compensation means the test meal falls by exactly the preload's calories; weak compensation — a test meal barely reduced despite a substantial preload — indicates a blunted response. The paradigm isolates the response's accuracy from the subjective report, and it is the workhorse of appetite research (#ref-blundell-2010). A second behavioural index, the satiety quotient, scales the suppression of appetite to the amount of energy that produced it, so that foods of different energy contents can be compared for satiating efficiency (#ref-green-1997). Gibbons and colleagues have catalogued the methodological pitfalls that beset all of these measures — order effects, the gap between subjective and behavioural indices, and the difficulty of relating any single session to habitual intake — and set out how they should be interpreted when the satiety response is used as an outcome in obesity research (#ref-gibbons-2019). The demonstration below works through the preload paradigm.

The Satiety Response in Obesity

A weakened satiety response is one of the mechanisms by which excess energy is consumed, and the understanding of obesity has shifted toward treating a blunted response as a modifiable cause rather than a fixed trait (#ref-amin-mercer-2016). Several of the response's channels can fail: post-ingestive peptide signalling can be attenuated, the subjective sense of fullness can be slow to arrive, and the properties of the food itself can defeat the response. Energy-dense foods deliver many calories before the volume- and nutrient-based signals that end a meal have time to accumulate, so that a normal behavioural meal size carries an abnormal energy load — the basis of Rolls's work on energy density as a lever for weight management (#ref-rollset-2016). Hopkins and Blundell set this within energy-balance physiology, showing how body composition and physical-activity level themselves tune the sensitivity of appetite control, so that the satiety response cannot be read in isolation from the organism's wider energy economy (#ref-hopkins-blundell-2016).

The response can also be present yet overridden. Morales and Berridge draw the critical distinction between the wanting and the liking of food: a palatable, highly rewarding food can drive continued eating through incentive motivation even as the homeostatic satiety signals call for the meal to end, so that hedonic wanting overrides an intact satiety response (#ref-morales-berridge-2020). This is the behavioural meaning of Berthoud's framing of the contest between metabolic and hedonic control as a question of which system is in charge (#ref-berthoud-2011): the satiety response is a recommendation the reward system can veto. It is precisely because the response is a target that can be strengthened that the gut-peptide pathways — GLP-1 above all — have become the basis of the most effective modern appetite pharmacotherapies, which work by amplifying the body's own satiety signalling (#ref-flint-1998).

Worked Example

The satiety quotient (SQ) makes the satiety response quantitative by scaling the fall in appetite to the energy that produced it, so that two foods can be compared for how much fullness each buys per calorie. In the form introduced by Green and colleagues, it is computed from appetite ratings taken before and after a fixed test food (#ref-green-1997):

SQ = (A_before − A_after) / E × 100

where A is an appetite rating in millimetres on a visual-analogue scale and E is the energy consumed in kilocalories; multiplying by 100 expresses the result per 100 kcal. Consider two foods eaten in equal 400 kcal portions. Food A lowers rated hunger from 80 mm to 20 mm, a fall of 60 mm; Food B lowers it from 80 mm to 40 mm, a fall of 40 mm:

- Food A: SQ = (80 − 20) / 400 × 100 = 60 / 400 × 100 = 15 mm per 100 kcal - Food B: SQ = (80 − 40) / 400 × 100 = 40 / 400 × 100 = 10 mm per 100 kcal

Food A produces half again as much appetite suppression per calorie as Food B, so it is the more satiating food even though both delivered identical energy. The quotient captures what a raw appetite change cannot: satiating efficiency, the return in fullness on each calorie spent.

The preload paradigm measures the same response from the other side — not the appetite reported, but the energy subsequently eaten. Suppose that without any preload a person eats 700 kcal at a test meal, and that after a 300 kcal preload the same test meal falls to 520 kcal. Caloric compensation is the share of the preload's energy that the person removed from the later meal:

- Compensation = (700 − 520) / 300 × 100 = 180 / 300 × 100 = 60%

A perfectly accurate satiety response would compensate 100%, shrinking the test meal by the full 300 kcal of the preload; this person compensates only 60%, carrying forward 120 kcal of the preload as surplus intake. Partial compensation of this kind is typical, and the degree of compensation is itself a sensitive index of how well the satiety response is tracking energy — the lower the compensation, the weaker the response. The demonstrations let both quantities be varied directly.

Discussion

The satiety response is a useful construct precisely because it is the measurable face of a set of internal states that cannot be observed directly. Satiation and satiety are inferred; the satiety response is recorded. By insisting on the behavioural and physiological output — the ordered post-meal sequence, the fall in rated appetite, the compensation at the next meal, the rise in gut peptides — the field gave itself observables that can be compared across foods, drugs, species, and clinical groups (#ref-woods-2009; #ref-blundell-2010). The behavioural satiety sequence is the paradigm case of this discipline: by demanding that a candidate satiety signal preserve the structure of post-meal behaviour, and not merely reduce intake, it screens out the many ways a meal can be cut short for reasons that have nothing to do with satiety (#ref-antin-1975; #ref-halford-1998).

The response's multi-channel character is its other recurring lesson. Subjective, behavioural, and physiological indices correlate but do not coincide, and each can fail on its own: a food may end a meal without feeling filling, a peptide may rise without changing behaviour, and a person may report fullness yet keep eating a rewarding food (#ref-smith-1996; #ref-morales-berridge-2020). This dissociability is not noise to be averaged away but the structure of the phenomenon, and it is why the satiety response is reported as a profile and why no single biomarker has ever been adequate as a stand-alone measure (#ref-degraaf-2004).

Current Directions

The most consequential current development is therapeutic. The recognition that the gut's own satiety peptides can be pharmacologically amplified has produced GLP-1 receptor agonists that strengthen the physiological satiety response and achieve weight loss previously reached only by surgery, turning a measurement construct into a drug target (#ref-flint-1998; #ref-amin-mercer-2016). This has sharpened interest in exactly which components of the response these agents engage — whether they advance meal termination, shift the subjective appetite curve, improve caloric compensation, or act on hedonic wanting — questions the component analysis above was built to answer.

A second front is methodological. Gibbons and colleagues have argued that the field needs standardised, validated measures of the human satiety response if it is to relate single-meal laboratory indices to habitual intake and to body-weight outcomes, and have catalogued the order effects and subjective-behavioural discrepancies that undermine naive comparisons (#ref-gibbons-2019). In parallel, the study of how food structure governs the response — energy density, the sensory contribution of smell and taste, and the time course over which each signal accrues — continues to translate the basic science into levers for the design of more satiating foods (#ref-rollset-2016; #ref-boesveldt-degraaf-2017; #ref-hopkins-blundell-2016).

Common Misconceptions

The satiety response is just the feeling of fullness.

Fullness is the private experience; the satiety response is the measurable output — the behavioural sequence, the fall in appetite ratings, the compensation at the next meal, and the gut-peptide signals — that expresses it. The two usually move together but can be dissociated (Blundell et al., 2010).

Anything that reduces food intake triggers satiety.

A toxin or a sedative also reduces intake, but by malaise or impairment rather than satiety. The behavioural satiety sequence distinguishes the two: a genuine satiety signal preserves the ordered eat-groom-rest progression, whereas illness disrupts it (Halford et al., 1998).

A single hormone or biomarker measures satiety.

No single marker is adequate. CCK, PYY, and GLP-1 each contribute, but the response is a profile across subjective, behavioural, and physiological channels, and the biomarkers track it only partially (de Graaf et al., 2004).

A working satiety response guarantees that eating stops.

An intact response can be overridden. The incentive wanting of a highly palatable food can sustain eating through reward circuitry even as homeostatic satiety signals call for the meal to end (Morales & Berridge, 2020).

Glossary

Behavioural satiety sequence (BSS).

The ordered post-meal progression from eating to grooming to resting; its preservation marks a genuine satiety response rather than feeding suppressed by illness or sedation.

Caloric compensation.

The reduction in test-meal intake following an energy preload, expressed as a percentage of the preload's calories; an index of how accurately the satiety response tracks energy.

Cephalic-phase response.

The anticipatory physiological secretions triggered by the sight, smell, and taste of food before ingestion, priming digestion and satiety.

Cholecystokinin (CCK).

A duodenal peptide released by fat and protein that acts on vagal afferents to curtail eating; the first gut peptide shown to elicit the complete behavioural sequence of satiety.

Gastric distension.

The mechanical stretch of the stomach wall as it fills, signalled by vagal afferents to the brainstem; a volume-dependent component of the physiological satiety response largely independent of a meal's energy content.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1).

An intestinal L-cell peptide that promotes satiety and suppresses energy intake; the basis of modern appetite pharmacotherapy.

Peptide YY (PYY).

A distal-gut peptide released in proportion to a meal's energy that physiologically inhibits food intake through hypothalamic circuits.

Preload paradigm.

A method that gives a fixed-energy preload and measures intake at a later test meal to quantify caloric compensation and so the behavioural satiety response.

Satiation.

The within-meal process that terminates eating and sets meal size; the broader MeSH construct under which the satiety response is classified.

Satiety cascade.

Blundell's framework describing how a meal's sensory, cognitive, post-ingestive, and post-absorptive phases unfold over time to generate and sustain the satiety response.

Satiety quotient (SQ).

The fall in rated appetite scaled to the energy consumed, (A_before − A_after)/E, expressing a food's satiating efficiency per unit energy.

Sensory-specific satiety.

The selective decline in the pleasantness of a food eaten to fullness while appetite for other foods persists; the sensory face of the satiety response.

Visual-analogue scale (VAS).

A rating line on which hunger, fullness, and desire to eat are marked before and after a food to track the subjective satiety response.

Wanting versus liking.

The distinction between the incentive motivation to obtain a food and the hedonic pleasure of consuming it; wanting can override an intact satiety response.

Key Researchers

Rachel L. Batterham

(University College London). Showed that the gut hormone PYY(3-36) acts on hypothalamic circuits to inhibit food intake, establishing a post-ingestive endocrine contributor to the physiological satiety response. [ORCID]

Hans-Rudolf Berthoud

(Pennington Biomedical Research Center). Maps the gut-brain vagal and hypothalamic circuits that turn ingested-food signals into the neural satiety response, and the contest between metabolic and hedonic control over it. [ORCID]

John E. Blundell

(University of Leeds). Developed the satiety cascade and, with Halford, the behavioural satiety sequence as a behavioural read-out of a genuine satiety response, and co-authored the satiety quotient for quantifying satiating efficiency. [ORCID]

Jason C. G. Halford

(University of Leeds). Established the behavioural satiety sequence as a diagnostic tool for separating a true satiety response from the nonspecific suppression of feeding by malaise or motor impairment. [ORCID]

Barbara J. Rolls

(Pennsylvania State University). Pioneered sensory-specific satiety and the study of how energy density and portion size govern the satiety response and energy intake. [Faculty page]

Edmund T. Rolls

(Oxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience). With Barbara J. Rolls, formulated and named sensory-specific satiety, and characterised orbitofrontal-cortex neurons whose responses to a food fall as it is eaten to fullness. [Wikipedia]

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the satiety response?

The satiety response is the coordinated set of behavioural and physiological changes that follow eating and bring a meal to an end, together with the signals that maintain fullness until the next meal. It is the measurable output of satiation and satiety, including meal termination, the fall in appetite, and the release of gut peptides.

How is the satiety response different from satiation?

Satiation is the process that ends a meal and sets its size; the satiety response is the measurable expression of that process and of the satiety that follows. In MeSH the satiety response is classified as a form of satiation, but it refers specifically to the observable output rather than the underlying state.

What is the behavioural satiety sequence?

It is the ordered progression of behaviour after a meal in freely behaving animals: eating gives way to grooming and activity, which give way to resting. The preservation of this eat-groom-rest order is the signature of a genuine satiety response and distinguishes it from feeding stopped by illness.

Why does the behavioural satiety sequence matter for drug testing?

Many agents reduce food intake, but only some do so by engaging satiety; others act through nausea or sedation. A drug that advances the normal sequence in the correct order is acting through a satiety-like mechanism, whereas one that disrupts the sequence is suppressing intake through malaise.

Which hormones produce the satiety response?

Short-term meal signals include cholecystokinin released by the duodenum, peptide YY from the distal gut, and glucagon-like peptide 1, together with gastric distension and vagal signalling. Longer-term adiposity signals, leptin and ghrelin, set how sensitive the meal-ending system is to the body's energy stores.

How is the satiety response measured in people?

By a battery of methods: visual-analogue scales for subjective hunger and fullness, plasma sampling of gut peptides, caloric compensation in a test meal after a fixed preload, and the satiety quotient, which scales the fall in appetite to the energy consumed.

What is the satiety quotient?

The satiety quotient is the fall in rated appetite divided by the energy of the food that produced it, expressed per unit energy. It measures satiating efficiency, so that foods of different calorie contents can be compared for how much fullness each produces per calorie.

Can the satiety response be overridden?

Yes. A highly palatable, rewarding food can sustain eating through incentive wanting even when homeostatic satiety signals call for the meal to end. A blunted or overridden satiety response is one mechanism by which excess energy is consumed in obesity.

References

Amin, T., & Mercer, J. G. (2016). Hunger and satiety mechanisms and their potential exploitation in the regulation of food intake. Current Obesity Reports, 5(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-015-0184-5

Antin, J., Gibbs, J., Holt, J., Young, R. C., & Smith, G. P. (1975). Cholecystokinin elicits the complete behavioral sequence of satiety in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(7), 784–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077040

Batterham, R. L., Cowley, M. A., Small, C. J., Herzog, H., Cohen, M. A., Dakin, C. L., Wren, A. M., Brynes, A. E., Low, M. J., Ghatei, M. A., Cone, R. D., & Bloom, S. R. (2002). Gut hormone PYY(3-36) physiologically inhibits food intake. Nature, 418(6898), 650–654. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00887

Benelam, B. (2009). Satiation, satiety and their effects on eating behaviour. Nutrition Bulletin, 34(2), 126–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2009.01753.x

Berthoud, H.-R. (2011). Metabolic and hedonic drives in the neural control of appetite: Who is the boss? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21(6), 888–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2011.09.004

Blundell, J., de Graaf, C., Hulshof, T., Jebb, S., Livingstone, B., Lluch, A., Mela, D., Salah, S., Schuring, E., van der Knaap, H., & Westerterp, M. (2010). Appetite control: Methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods. Obesity Reviews, 11(3), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2010.00714.x

Boesveldt, S., & de Graaf, K. (2017). The differential role of smell and taste for eating behavior. Perception, 46(3–4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006616685576

Cummings, D. E., & Overduin, J. (2007). Gastrointestinal regulation of food intake. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 117(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI30227

de Graaf, C., Blom, W. A. M., Smeets, P. A. M., Stafleu, A., & Hendriks, H. F. J. (2004). Biomarkers of satiation and satiety. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(6), 946–961. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/79.6.946

Flint, A., Raben, A., Astrup, A., & Holst, J. J. (1998). Glucagon-like peptide 1 promotes satiety and suppresses energy intake in humans. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 101(3), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI990

Gibbons, C., Hopkins, M., Beaulieu, K., Oustric, P., & Blundell, J. E. (2019). Issues in measuring and interpreting human appetite (satiety/satiation) and its contribution to obesity. Current Obesity Reports, 8(2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-019-00340-6

Gibbs, J., Young, R. C., & Smith, G. P. (1973). Cholecystokinin decreases food intake in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 84(3), 488–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034870

Green, S. M., Delargy, H. J., Joanes, D., & Blundell, J. E. (1997). A satiety quotient: A formulation to assess the satiating effect of food. Appetite, 29(3), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1997.0096

Halford, J. C. G., Wanninayake, S. C. D., & Blundell, J. E. (1998). Behavioral satiety sequence (BSS) for the diagnosis of drug action on food intake. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, 61(2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-3057(98)00032-X

Hopkins, M., & Blundell, J. E. (2016). Energy balance, body composition, sedentariness and appetite regulation: Pathways to obesity. Clinical Science, 130(18), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20160006

Klok, M. D., Jakobsdottir, S., & Drent, M. L. (2007). The role of leptin and ghrelin in the regulation of food intake and body weight in humans: A review. Obesity Reviews, 8(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00270.x

Morales, I., & Berridge, K. C. (2020). "Liking" and "wanting" in eating and food reward: Brain mechanisms and clinical implications. Physiology & Behavior, 227, 113152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113152

Power, M. L., & Schulkin, J. (2008). Anticipatory physiological regulation in feeding biology: Cephalic phase responses. Appetite, 50(2–3), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.10.006

Rolls, B. J., Rolls, E. T., Rowe, E. A., & Sweeney, K. (1981). Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiology & Behavior, 27(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(81)90310-3

Rolls, B. J. (2017). Dietary energy density: Applying behavioural science to weight management. Nutrition Bulletin, 42(3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12280

Smith, G. P. (1996). The direct and indirect controls of meal size. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 20(1), 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7634(95)00038-G

Woods, S. C. (2009). The control of food intake: Behavioral versus molecular perspectives. Cell Metabolism, 9(6), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2009.04.007