Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429608›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2024

How do animals weigh conflicting information about reward sources over time? Comparing dynamic averaging models.

Jack Van Allsburg, Timothy A Shahan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jack Van AllsburgDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. jack.vanallsburg@usu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-9446-7184
Timothy A ShahanDepartment of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-8714

Funding

Basic and Clinical Studies in Reinforcing Positive Behaviors in Intellectual and Developmental DisabilitiesR01HD093734 · NICHD · UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Timothy A Shahan · 2018 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD093734
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal foraging theory suggests that animals make decisions which maximize their food intake per unit time when foraging, but the mechanisms animals use to track the value of behavioral alternatives and choose between them remain unclear. Several models for how animals integrate past experience have been suggested. However, these models make differential predictions for the occurrence of spontaneous recovery of choice: a behavioral phenomenon in which a hiatus from the experimental environment results in animals reverting to a behavioral allocation consistent with a reward distribution from the more distant past, rather than one consistent with their most recently experienced distribution. To explore this phenomenon and compare these models, three free-operant experiments with rats were conducted using a serial reversal design. In Phase 1, two responses (A and B) were baited with pellets on concurrent variable interval schedules, favoring option A. In Phase 2, lever baiting was reversed to favor option B. Rats then entered a delay period, where they were maintained at weight in their home cages and no experimental sessions took place. Following this delay, preference was assessed using initial responding in test sessions where levers were presented, but not baited. Models were compared in performance, including an exponentially weighted moving average, the Temporal Weighting Rule, and variants of these models. While the data provided strong evidence of spontaneous recovery of choice, the form and extent of recovery was inconsistent with the models under investigation. Potential interpretations are discussed in relation to both the decision rule and valuation functions employed.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorConditioning, OperantAnimalsBehavior, AnimalRatsRewardChoiceConcurrent schedulesDynamic averagingSpontaneous recoveryTemporal weighting rule

Identifiers

PMID38429608
PMCPMC10907467

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.