Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38079467›Full record

ArticleeLife2023

Effort cost of harvest affects decisions and movement vigor of marmosets during foraging.

Paul Hage, In Kyu Jang, Vivian Looi, Mohammad Amin Fakharian, Simon P Orozco, Jay S Pi, Ehsan Sedaghat-Nejad, Reza Shadmehr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Coordination of spike timing among the neurons of the cerebellum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Control of tongue movements by the Purkinje cells of the cerebellum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. The olivary input to the cerebellum dissociates sensory events from movement plans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paul HageLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
In Kyu JangLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Vivian LooiLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Mohammad Amin FakharianLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Simon P OrozcoLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Jay S PiLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Ehsan Sedaghat-NejadLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.
Reza ShadmehrLaboratory for Computational Motor Control, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7686-2569
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

The multiple components of motor memoryR01NS078311 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SHADMEHR, REZA · 2012 to 2021
$3.8M
Control of movements by the cerebellumR37NS128416 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REZA SHADMEHR · 2023 to 2026
$3.1M
A new theory of population coding in the cerebellumR01EB028156 · NIBIB · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SHADMEHR, REZA · 2020 to 2020
$1.2M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB028156NIH HHS R01-EB028156NIH HHS R01-NS078311NIH HHS R37-NS128416NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS078311NINDS NIH HHS R37 NS128416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our decisions are guided by how we perceive the value of an option, but this evaluation also affects how we move to acquire that option. Why should economic variables such as reward and effort alter the vigor of our movements? In theory, both the option that we choose and the vigor with which we move contribute to a measure of fitness in which the objective is to maximize rewards minus efforts, divided by time. To explore this idea, we engaged marmosets in a foraging task in which on each trial they decided whether to work by making saccades to visual targets, thus accumulating food, or to harvest by licking what they had earned. We varied the effort cost of harvest by moving the food tube with respect to the mouth. Theory predicted that the subjects should respond to the increased effort costs by choosing to work longer, stockpiling food before commencing harvest, but reduce their movement vigor to conserve energy. Indeed, in response to an increased effort cost of harvest, marmosets extended their work duration, but slowed their movements. These changes in decisions and movements coincided with changes in pupil size. As the effort cost of harvest declined, work duration decreased, the pupils dilated, and the vigor of licks and saccades increased. Thus, when acquisition of reward became effortful, the pupils constricted, the decisions exhibited delayed gratification, and the movements displayed reduced vigor.

Indexed as

CallithrixMovementAnimalsDecision MakingHumansReaction TimeRewardTimedecision makingforaging theorymarmosetsneurosciencesaccadesvigor

Identifiers

PMID38079467
PMCPMC10715725
OpenAlexW4383218387

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.