ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2018
Foraging for foundations in decision neuroscience: insights from ethology.
Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 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
114 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oxytocin Reduces Subjective Fear in Naturalistic Social Contexts via Enhancing Top-Down Middle Cingulate Amygdala Regulation and Brain-Wide Fear Representations.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Trial
- 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
- Acetylcholine and noradrenaline enhance foraging optimality in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Trial
- Dopamine Modulates Dynamic Decision-Making during Foraging.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2020Trial
- Amisulpride and l-DOPA modulate subcortical brain nuclei connectivity in resting-state pharmacologic magnetic resonance imaging.Human brain mapping · 2020Trial
- Self-relevance dynamically biases exploration and exploitation in value-based decisions.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Emotional reactivity and decision-making under social deprivation: the role of trait anxiety during quarantine.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Cuttlefish use the negation of dead prey to judge food value in foraging decision.Biology letters · 2026Article
- High-fat diet exposure, internal state, and reward value influence decision making during motivational conflict.Neurobiology of stress · 2026Article
- Context-dependent feature modulation shapes human decision policies in approach-avoidance conflicts.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Stochastic choice drives variability in patch foraging decisions in humans and rats.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Meta-learning is expressed through altered prefrontal cortical dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Shared and distinct features of common effort-based decision-making paradigms and their relation to brain structure and neuropsychiatric conditions: An integrated narrative review.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Rethinking category-selectivity in human visual cortex.Cognitive neuroscience · 2026Review
- Review
- Humans are more prosocial in poor foraging environments.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Decision context and neurobehavioural disturbance in Huntington's disease.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Human foraging strategies flexibly adapt to resource distribution and time constraints.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
54 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Modern decision neuroscience offers a powerful and broad account of human behaviour using computational techniques that link psychological and neuroscientific approaches to the ways that individuals can generate near-optimal choices in complex controlled environments. However, until recently, relatively little attention has been paid to the extent to which the structure of experimental environments relates to natural scenarios, and the survival problems that individuals have evolved to solve. This situation not only risks leaving decision-theoretic accounts ungrounded but also makes various aspects of the solutions, such as hard-wired or Pavlovian policies, difficult to interpret in the natural world. Here, we suggest importing concepts, paradigms and approaches from the fields of ethology and behavioural ecology, which concentrate on the contextual and functional correlates of decisions made about foraging and escape and address these lacunae.
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.