ArticleVision research2021
Target value and prevalence influence visual foraging in younger and older age.
Article in Vision research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attention directs actions in visual foraging.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2025Article
- The effect of target scarcity on visual foraging.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Foraging as sampling without replacement: A Bayesian statistical model for estimating biases in target selection.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
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
Abstract
The prevalence and reward-value of targets have an influence on visual search. The strength of the effect of an item's reward-value on attentional selection varies substantially between individuals and is potentially sensitive to aging. We investigated individual and age differences in a hybrid foraging task, in which the prevalence and value of multiple target types was varied. Using optimal foraging theory measures, foraging was more efficient overall in younger than older observers. However, the influence of prevalence and value on target selections was similar across age groups, suggesting that the underlying cognitive mechanisms are preserved in older age. When prevalence was varied but target value was balanced, younger and older observers preferably selected the most frequent target type and were biased to select another instance of the previously selected target type. When value was varied, younger and older observers showed a tendency to select high-value targets, but preferences were more diverse between individuals. When value and prevalence were inversely related, some observers showed particularly strong preferences for high-valued target types, while others showed a preference for high-prevalent, albeit low-value, target types. In younger adults, individual differences in the selection choices correlated with a personality index, suggesting that avoiding selections of low-value targets may be related to reward-seeking behaviour.
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.