Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35218049›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences2022

A bias toward the unknown: individual and environmental factors influencing exploratory behavior.

Tara M Petzke, Judith Schomaker

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tara M PetzkeDepartment of Health, Medical & Neuropsychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-2577-7695
Judith SchomakerDepartment of Health, Medical & Neuropsychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8615-497X
Leiden University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With limited resources, exploring new opportunities is crucial for survival. Exploring novel options, however, comes at the cost of uncertainty. Therefore, there is a trade-off between exploiting options with a known beneficial outcome and exploring novel options with a potentially higher gain. Computational models have suggested that novelty may promote exploratory behavior by inducing a so-called novelty bonus through reward-related processes. So far, few studies have provided behavioral evidence for such a novelty bonus. In this study, we aimed to investigate whether spatial novelty can stimulate exploratory behavior (Experiment 1), and whether age, novelty-seeking, and reduced action radius or social interactions due to COVID-19 restrictions influenced the exploration-exploitation trade-off (Experiment 2). In both experiments, we employed a novel paradigm in which participants made binary decisions between food items, while on rare trials, a surprise option was presented. Results from Experiment 1 are in line with a novelty bonus, with spatial novelty promoting exploratory behavior. In Experiment 2, we found that exploratory behavior declined with age, high novelty seekers made more exploratory choices than low novelty seekers, and participants with a smaller action radius made fewer exploratory choices. These findings are consistent with previous findings in animals and predictions from computational models.

Indexed as

COVID-19Exploratory BehaviorAnimalsBiasHumansRewardUncertaintydecision makingexplorationfood choicesnoveltysurprisevalue

Identifiers

PMID35218049
PMCPMC9306615
OpenAlexW4214724989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.