ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Foraging as sampling without replacement: A Bayesian statistical model for estimating biases in target selection.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Generative modelling of continuous feature foraging reveals probabilistic representations of target distributions.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Picking the right piece: Action intentions shape visual search and action planning in human multi-target-foraging.iScience · 2025Article
- Foraging through emotions: emotional stimuli and participants' trait anxiety shape visual foraging.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- One factor to bind them all: visual foraging organization to predict patch leaving behavior with ROC curves.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 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
- Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- The time course of visual foraging in the lifespan: Spatial scanning, organization search, and target processing.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Correction: Foraging as sampling without replacement: A Bayesian statistical model for estimating biases in target selection.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Humans trade off search costs and accuracy in a combined visual search and perceptual task.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- A Bayesian Statistical Model Is Able to Predict Target-by-Target Selection Behaviour in a Human Foraging Task.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Visual search habits and the spatial structure of scenes.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging entails finding multiple targets sequentially. In humans and other animals, a key observation has been a tendency to forage in 'runs' of the same target type. This tendency is context-sensitive, and in humans, it is strongest when the targets are difficult to distinguish from the distractors. Many important questions have yet to be addressed about this and other tendencies in human foraging, and a key limitation is a lack of precise measures of foraging behaviour. The standard measures tend to be run statistics, such as the maximum run length and the number of runs. But these measures are not only interdependent, they are also constrained by the number and distribution of targets, making it difficult to make inferences about the effects of these aspects of the environment on foraging. Moreover, run statistics are underspecified about the underlying cognitive processes determining foraging behaviour. We present an alternative approach: modelling foraging as a procedure of generative sampling without replacement, implemented in a Bayesian multilevel model. This allows us to break behaviour down into a number of biases that influence target selection, such as the proximity of targets and a bias for selecting targets in runs, in a way that is not dependent on the number of targets present. Our method thereby facilitates direct comparison of specific foraging tendencies between search environments that differ in theoretically important dimensions. We demonstrate the use of our model with simulation examples and re-analysis of existing data. We believe our model will provide deeper insights into visual foraging and provide a foundation for further modelling work in this area.
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.