Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33956238›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2021

The Predation Game: Does dividing attention affect patterns of human foraging?

Ian M Thornton, Jérôme Tagu, Sunčica Zdravković, Árni Kristjánsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  8. The effects of visual and auditory synchrony on human foraging.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024
    Article
  9. How history trails and set size influence detection of hostile intentions.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022
    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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Ian M Thornton *Department of Cognitive Science, Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta. ian.thornton@um.edu.mt.ORCID 0000-0001-6328-3536
Jérôme Tagu *Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Oddi v. Sturlugötu, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID 0000-0003-2331-7433
Sunčica ZdravkovićDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia.ORCID 0000-0002-3254-8551
Árni KristjánssonFaculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Oddi v. Sturlugötu, 101, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID 0000-0003-4168-4886
National Research University Higher School of Economics · RUUniversité de Bordeaux · FRUniversity of Malta · MTUniversity of Novi Sad · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attention is known to play an important role in shaping the behaviour of both human and animal foragers. Here, in three experiments, we built on previous interactive tasks to create an online foraging game for studying divided attention in human participants exposed to the (simulated) risk of predation. Participants used a "sheep" icon to collect items from different target categories randomly distributed across the display. Each trial also contained "wolf" objects, whose movement was inspired by classic studies of multiple object tracking. When participants needed to physically avoid the wolves, foraging patterns changed, with an increased tendency to switch between target categories and a decreased ability to prioritise high reward targets, relative to participants who could safely ignore them. However, when the wolves became dangerous by periodically changing form (briefly having big eyes) instead of by approaching the sheep, foraging patterns were unaffected. Spatial disruption caused by the need to rapidly shift position-rather the cost of reallocating attention-therefore appears to influence foraging in this context. These results thus confirm that participants can efficiently alternate between target selection and tracking moving objects, replicating earlier single-target search findings. Future studies may need to increase the perceived risk or potential costs associated with simulated danger, in order to elicit the extended run behaviour predicted by animal models of foraging, but absent in the current data.

Indexed as

Predatory BehaviorWolvesAnimalsAttentionHumansMovementRewardSheepDivided attentionDual-taskForagingMultiple-object trackingMultiple target searchPredationVisual search

Identifiers

PMID33956238
PMCPMC8100746
OpenAlexW3159197663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.