ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Foraging as an evidence accumulation process.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continuous foraging behavior shapes patch-leaving decisions in pigeons: a 3D tracking study.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- First Evidence of Diverse Inhibitory Control Abilities in Pre- and Post-Metamorphic Salamanders.Integrative zoology · 2026Article
- Decision-making trades off learned and perceived information.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- Review
- Developmental and genetic modulation of evidence integration dynamics in zebrafish sensorimotor decision-making.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Freely foraging macaques value information in ambiguous terrains.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Foraging as an ethological framework for neuroscience.Trends in neurosciences · 2025Review
- Decision-making trades off learned and perceived information.Research square · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Foraging animals use dynamic Bayesian updating to model meta-uncertainty in environment representations.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Increasing Response Vigour Under Time Pressure as a Transdiagnostic Marker of Eating Disorders.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Review
- Adapting to Uncertainty: Foraging Strategies inInsects · 2024Article
- A normative framework dissociates need and motivation in hypothalamic neurons.Science advances · 2024Article
- No matter what you do, travel is travel in visual foraging.Vision research · 2024Article
- A cognitive process model captures near-optimal confidence-guided waiting in rats.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Exploration-exploitation trade-off is regulated by metabolic state and taste value inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Visual social information use in collective foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Foraging Under Uncertainty Follows the Marginal Value Theorem with Bayesian Updating of Environment Representations.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Attention deficits linked with proclivity to explore while foraging.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The patch-leaving problem is a canonical foraging task, in which a forager must decide to leave a current resource in search for another. Theoretical work has derived optimal strategies for when to leave a patch, and experiments have tested for conditions where animals do or do not follow an optimal strategy. Nevertheless, models of patch-leaving decisions do not consider the imperfect and noisy sampling process through which an animal gathers information, and how this process is constrained by neurobiological mechanisms. In this theoretical study, we formulate an evidence accumulation model of patch-leaving decisions where the animal averages over noisy measurements to estimate the state of the current patch and the overall environment. We solve the model for conditions where foraging decisions are optimal and equivalent to the marginal value theorem, and perform simulations to analyze deviations from optimal when these conditions are not met. By adjusting the drift rate and decision threshold, the model can represent different "strategies", for example an incremental, decremental, or counting strategy. These strategies yield identical decisions in the limiting case but differ in how patch residence times adapt when the foraging environment is uncertain. To describe sub-optimal decisions, we introduce an energy-dependent marginal utility function that predicts longer than optimal patch residence times when food is plentiful. Our model provides a quantitative connection between ecological models of foraging behavior and evidence accumulation models of decision making. Moreover, it provides a theoretical framework for potential experiments which seek to identify neural circuits underlying patch-leaving decisions.
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.