ArticlePloS one2020
Reward foraging task and model-based analysis reveal how fruit flies learn value of available options.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Altered reactivity to threatening stimuli ineLife · 2025Article
- Sex-Specific Effects of Social Environment on Behaviour and Their Correlations inEcology and evolution · 2025Article
- Exploration-exploitation trade-off is regulated by metabolic state and taste value inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Reward expectations direct learning and drive operant matching inProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- The Panopticon-Assessing the Effect of Starvation on Prolonged Fly Activity and Place Preference.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging animals have to evaluate, compare and select food patches in order to increase their fitness. Understanding what drives foraging decisions requires careful manipulation of the value of alternative options while monitoring animals choices. Value-based decision-making tasks in combination with formal learning models have provided both an experimental and theoretical framework to study foraging decisions in lab settings. While these approaches were successfully used in the past to understand what drives choices in mammals, very little work has been done on fruit flies. This is despite the fact that fruit flies have served as model organism for many complex behavioural paradigms. To fill this gap we developed a single-animal, trial-based decision making task, where freely walking flies experienced optogenetic sugar-receptor neuron stimulation. We controlled the value of available options by manipulating the probabilities of optogenetic stimulation. We show that flies integrate reward history of chosen options and forget value of unchosen options. We further discover that flies assign higher values to rewards experienced early in the behavioural session, consistent with formal reinforcement learning models. Finally, we also show that the probabilistic rewards affect walking trajectories of flies, suggesting that accumulated value is controlling the navigation vector of flies in a graded fashion. These findings establish the fruit fly as a model organism to explore the genetic and circuit basis of reward foraging 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.