Dual-process models integrate deliberative and impulsive mental systems and predict dietary behaviours better than deliberative processes alone. Computerised tasks such as the Go/No-Go, Stop-Signal, Approach-Avoidance, and Evaluative Conditioning have been used as interventions to directly alter implicit biases. This meta-analysis examines the effects of these tasks on dietary behaviours, explores potential moderators of effectiveness, and examines implicit bias change as a proposed mechanism. Thirty randomised controlled trials testing implicit bias interventions (47 comparisons) were included in a random-effects meta-analysis, which indicated small cumulative effects on eating-related behavioural outcomes (g = −0.17, CI₉₅ = [−0.29; −0.05], p = .01) and implicit biases (g = −0.18, CI₉₅= [−0.34; −0.02], p = .02). Task type moderated these effects, with Go/No-Go tasks producing larger effects than other tasks. Effects of interventions on implicit biases were positively related to effects on eating behaviour (B = 0.42, CI₉₅= [0.02; 0.81], p = .03). Go/No-Go tasks seem to have most potential for altering dietary behaviours through implicit processes. While changes in implicit biases seem related to the effects of these interventions on dietary outcomes, more research should explore whether repeated exposure to implicit bias interventions may have any practical intervention value in real world settings.

双过程模型整合了审议性和冲动性心理系统，比单独审议过程更好地预测饮食行为。诸如执行/不执行，停止信号，避免进近和评估条件之类的计算机任务已被用作直接改变隐性偏差的干预措施。这项荟萃分析研究了这些任务对饮食行为的影响，探讨了潜在的调节作用因素，并将隐性偏倚变化作为一种​​拟议的机制进行了研究。随机效应荟萃分析包括30项测试隐性偏倚干预的随机对照试验（47个比较），这表明对饮食相关行为结局的累积影响较小（g  = -0.17，CI ₉₅  = [-0.29； -0.05] ，p = .01）和隐性偏差（g  = -0.18，CI ₉₅ = [-0.34; -0.02]，p  = .02）。任务类型减轻了这些影响，“执行/不执行”任务比其他任务产生更大的影响。干预措施对内隐偏见的影响与饮食行为的影响呈正相关（B  = 0.42，CI ₉₅ = [0.02; 0.81]，p  = .03）。执行/不执行任务似乎最有可能通过隐性过程改变饮食行为。虽然隐性偏见的变化似乎与这些干预措施对饮食结局的影响有关，但更多的研究应探讨重复暴露于隐性偏见干预措施在现实世界中是否具有任何实际的干预价值。