Table 2.

Experiment 2: food neophobia

	Latencies (s)			Statistics
Performance measure	Sham (n = 10)	HPC (n = 12)	OFC (n = 11)	F2,30-value	P-value
(i) Contact	14.2 ± 1.7	14.2 ± 1.2	21.8 ± 4.9	2.10	> 0.10
(ii) Eat	368.0 ± 41.0	71.6 ± 20.4	182.8 ± 48.9	15.4	< 0.001
(iii) [Eat – contact]	353.8 ± 40.2	57.4 ± 20.4	161.0 ± 45.2	17.2	< 0.001

Latency values are mean ± SEM, (i) to make first contact with the food, (ii) to begin eating, and (iii) [eat – contact]. Newman–Keuls post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed significant differences between sham and HPC (P < 0.001), sham and OFC (P < 0.005) and HPC and OFC (P < 0.05) for latency to eat. There were also significant group differences between sham and HPC (P < 0.001), sham and OFC (P < 0.001) and HPC and OFC (P < 0.05) for latency [eat – contact].