Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28669114›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2017

Sure enough: efficient Bayesian learning and choice.

Brad R Foley, Paul Marjoram

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Brad R FoleyThe Department of Molecular and Computational Biology, The University of Southern California, 1050 Childs Way, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. bradfole@usc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4543-0648
Paul MarjoramPreventative Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, The University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90032, USA.

Funding

Drosophila Societies: Agent-Based Analysis of Behavioral Plasticity and GeneticsR01MH100879 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MARJORAM, PAUL, NUZHDIN, SERGEY V · 2013 to 2016
$2.0M
National Institute of Mental Health MH1100879NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probabilistic decision-making is a general phenomenon in animal behavior, and has often been interpreted to reflect the relative certainty of animals' beliefs. Extensive neurological and behavioral results increasingly suggest that animal beliefs may be represented as probability distributions, with explicit accounting of uncertainty. Accordingly, we develop a model that describes decision-making in a manner consistent with this understanding of neuronal function in learning and conditioning. This first-order Markov, recursive Bayesian algorithm is as parsimonious as its minimalist point-estimate, Rescorla-Wagner analogue. We show that the Bayesian algorithm can reproduce naturalistic patterns of probabilistic foraging, in simulations of an experiment in bumblebees. We go on to show that the Bayesian algorithm can efficiently describe the behavior of several heuristic models of decision-making, and is consistent with the ubiquitous variation in choice that we observe within and between individuals in implementing heuristic decision-making. By describing learning and decision-making in a single Bayesian framework, we believe we can realistically unify descriptions of behavior across contexts and organisms. A unified cognitive model of this kind may facilitate descriptions of behavioral evolution.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorLearningAlgorithmsAnimalsAppetitive BehaviorBayes TheoremBeesDecision MakingModels, TheoreticalBayesianDecision-makingForagingLearningUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID28669114
PMCPMC5709194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.