ArticleiScience2021
Control over patch encounters changes foraging behavior.
Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rats pursue food and leisure following the same rational principles.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Reward-reset interval timing drives patch foraging decisions through neural state transitions in dorsomedial striatum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Replay in the human visual cortex during brief task pauses is linked to implicit learning of successor representations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Risk preferences depend on environmental richness in rats performing a patch-foraging task.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Increasing Response Vigour Under Time Pressure as a Transdiagnostic Marker of Eating Disorders.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Review
- Common neural choice signals can emerge artefactually amid multiple distinct value signals.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Influence of surprise on reinforcement learning in younger and older adults.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Grid-like entorhinal representation of an abstract value space during prospective decision making.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Mechanisms of adjustments to different types of uncertainty in the reward environment across mice and monkeys.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2023Article
- Sex differences in patch-leaving foraging decisions in rats.Oxford open neuroscience · 2023Article
- Filling the gaps: Cognitive control as a critical lens for understanding mechanisms of value-based decision-making.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Review
- Choice history effects in mice and humans improve reward harvesting efficiency.PLoS computational biology · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging is a common decision problem in natural environments. When new exploitable sites are always available, a simple optimal strategy is to leave a current site when its return falls below a single average reward rate. Here, we examined foraging in a more structured environment, with a limited number of sites that replenished at different rates and had to be revisited. When participants could choose sites, they visited fast-replenishing sites more often, left sites at higher levels of reward, and achieved a higher net reward rate. Decisions to exploit-or-leave a site were best explained with a computational model that included both the average reward rate for the environment and reward information about the unattended sites. This suggests that unattended sites influence leave decisions, in foraging environments where sites can be revisited.
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.