Table 2.

Western-style diet.

Source	Model	Strain/ Species	Subject Sex	Diet Manipulation	Diet Exposure Period	Behavioral Assays	Testing Age	Significant Outcomes
Wright 2011(69)	Rat	Wistar	Male and female	Chow and cafeteria diet: DAC 9.53g fat (2.70g control), 5.71g sucrose (control DAC 2.70g fat, 1.75g sucrose)	Gestation, Lactation, Perinatal	Open field test, Elevated plus maze	10 weeks	Lactation WSD decreased risk aversion in males (EPM, OFT). Lactation WSD decreased activity and passive coping behaviors in males and females (OFT, EPM).
Janthakhin 2017 (73)	Rat	Wistar	Male	Chow: 45% energy lard fat, 17.5% energy sucrose (control 0% lard, 0% sucrose)	Perinatal	Open field test	3-5 months	No differences.
Speight 2017 (68)	Rat	Wistar	Male and female	Chow and cafeteria diet: DAC 11.63g fat, 5.95g sucrose (control DAC 3.325g fat, 1.97g sucrose)	Lactation	Open field test, Elevated plus maze, Home-cage activity	3 weeks	Decreased risk aversion and increased activity and rearing (OFT, EPM).
Giriko 2013 (71)	Rat	Wistar	Male	Chow: 18% ration lard fat, 2% ration sucrose (control 0% lard, 0% sucrose)	Lactation	Forced swim test, Foot-shock, Open field test (activity)	8-14 weeks	Decreased climbing and swimming (FST) and increased aggressive response (foot-shock).
Johnson 2017 (70)	Mouse	Oldfield	Male and female	Chow: 15% ration lard fat, 20% ration sugar (control 0% lard, 10% sugar)	Pre-conception perinatal	Elevated plus maze, Voluntary wheel running, Home-cage activity	12 weeks	All animals had increased number of entries into open arms compared to closed arms. Increased immobility in females (EPM). Decreased head dipping but increased rearing in males (EPM). Decreased activity (home-cage).
Ribeiro 2018 (72)	Mouse	Swiss	Male and Female	Chow and cafeteria diet	Gestation	Light-dark transition test, Open field test (activity)	4 weeks	Decreased risk aversion in males and females, exaggerated in males (LDT).

Cafeteria diets are provided in addition to nutritionally complete chow and vary depending on the model, but typically are an assortment of candy and chips. Nutritional or energy intake not available from Wright 2011 so reported averages were taken from a different publication from the same group (135). Ribeiro 2018 (72) did not report nutritional values comparable to other cafeteria diet models but additional information regarding component products’ energy and nutritional content is available. Open field tests that did not consider zone differences were used to assess activity only, not threat response. DAC=daily average consumption, calculated experimentally, OFT=Open field test, EPM=Elevated plus maze, FST=Forced swim test, LDT= Light-dark transition