ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. General2016
Rats value time differently on equivalent foraging and delay-discounting tasks.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Noninvasive Brain Stimulation over the Frontopolar Cortex Promotes Willingness to Exert Cognitive Effort in a Foraging-Like Sequential Choice Task.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025Trial
- Foraging models explain human exploration in uncertain tasks.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Stochastic choice drives variability in patch foraging decisions in humans and rats.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Mixed hybrid visual foraging is near optimal.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- Article
- Foraging animals use dynamic Bayesian updating to model meta-uncertainty in environment representations.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Article
- No matter what you do, travel is travel in visual foraging.Vision research · 2024Article
- Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Foraging Under Uncertainty Follows the Marginal Value Theorem with Bayesian Updating of Environment Representations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Effort Foraging Task reveals positive correlation between individual differences in the cost of cognitive and physical effort in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Mechanisms of impulsive choice: Experiments to explore and models to map the empirical terrain.Learning & behavior · 2023Review
- Reward maximization assessed using a sequential patch depletion task in a large sample of heterogeneous stock rats.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Overharvesting in human patch foraging reflects rational structure learning and adaptive planning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- On the Role of Theory and Modeling in Neuroscience.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Reward Maximization Assessed Using a Sequential Patch Depletion Task in a Large Sample of Heterogeneous Stock Rats.Research square · 2023Article
- A quadruple dissociation of reward-related behaviour in mice across excitatory inputs to the nucleus accumbens shell.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Certainty and uncertainty of the future changes planning and sunk costs.Behavioral neuroscience · 2021Article
- Uncertainty drives deviations in normative foraging decision strategies.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
All organisms have to consider consequences that vary through time. Theories explaining how animals handle intertemporal choice include delay-discounting models, in which the value of future rewards is discounted by the delay until receipt, and foraging models, which predict that decision-makers maximize rate of reward. We measured the behavior of rats on a 2-option delay-discounting task and a stay/go foraging task that were equivalent for rate of reward and physical demand. Despite the highly shared features of the tasks, rats were willing to wait much longer on the foraging task than on the delay-discounting task. Moreover, choice performance by rats was less optimal in terms of total reward received on the foraging task compared to the delay-discounting task. We applied a suite of intertemporal choice models to the data but found that we needed a novel model incorporating interactions of decision-making systems to successfully explain behavior. Our findings (a) highlight the importance of factors that historically have been seen as irrelevant and (b) indicate the inadequacy of current general theories of intertemporal choice. (PsycINFO Database Record
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.