Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34905548›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2021

How the value of the environment controls persistence in visual search.

Michael R Traner, Ethan S Bromberg-Martin, Ilya E Monosov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Michael R TranerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0876-4764
Ethan S Bromberg-MartinDepartment of Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7953-5205
Ilya E MonosovDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0057-7929

Funding

MECHANISMS OF INFORMATION SEEKING IN THE PRIMATE BRAINR01MH116937 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ilya E. Monosov · 2019 to 2026
$4.0M
Neural Circuits that Regulate Risk SeekingR01MH110594 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ilya E. Monosov · 2017 to 2026
$3.9M
Neuronal mechanisms of novelty seekingR01MH128344 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ilya E. Monosov · 2022 to 2026
$1.9M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH110594NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH116937NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH128344
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classic foraging theory predicts that humans and animals aim to gain maximum reward per unit time. However, in standard instrumental conditioning tasks individuals adopt an apparently suboptimal strategy: they respond slowly when the expected value is low. This reward-related bias is often explained as reduced motivation in response to low rewards. Here we present evidence this behavior is associated with a complementary increased motivation to search the environment for alternatives. We trained monkeys to search for reward-related visual targets in environments with different values. We found that the reward-related bias scaled with environment value, was consistent with persistent searching after the target was already found, and was associated with increased exploratory gaze to objects in the environment. A novel computational model of foraging suggests that this search strategy could be adaptive in naturalistic settings where both environments and the objects within them provide partial information about hidden, uncertain rewards.

Indexed as

EnvironmentRewardAnimalsAppetitive BehaviorChoice BehaviorComputational BiologyConditioning, OperantMacaca mulattaMaleModels, PsychologicalMotivationVisual Fields

Identifiers

PMID34905548
PMCPMC8714092

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.