ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2023
Foraging for the self: Environment selection for agency inference.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2023. 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.
- Article
- Autistic traits foster effective curiosity-driven exploration.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- The Many Roles of Precision in Action.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- When the interoceptive and conceptual clash: The case of oppositional phenomenal self-modelling in Tourette syndrome.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sometimes agents choose to occupy environments that are neither traditionally rewarding nor worth exploring, but which rather promise to help minimise uncertainty related to what they can control. Selecting environments that afford inferences about agency seems a foundational aspect of environment selection dynamics - if an agent can't form reliable beliefs about what they can and can't control, then they can't act efficiently to achieve rewards. This relatively neglected aspect of environment selection is important to study so that we can better understand why agents occupy certain environments over others - something that may also be relevant for mental and developmental conditions, such as autism. This online experiment investigates the impact of uncertainty about agency on the way participants choose to freely move between two environments, one that has greater irreducible variability and one that is more complex to model. We hypothesise that increasingly erroneous predictions about the expected outcome of agency-exploring actions can be a driver of switching environments, and we explore which type of environment agents prefer. Results show that participants actively switch between the two environments following increases in prediction error, and that the tolerance for prediction error before switching is modulated by individuals' autism traits. Further, we find that participants more frequently occupy the variable environment, which is predicted by greater accuracy and higher confidence than the complex environment. This is the first online study to investigate relatively unconstrained ongoing foraging dynamics in support of judgements of agency, and in doing so represents a significant methodological advance.
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.