Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38979068›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

Hungry pigeons prefer sooner rare food over later likely food or faster information.

Neslihan Wittek, Berna Selin Sayin, Nurdem Okur, Kevin Wittek, Naciye Gül, Fatma Oeksuez, Onur Güntürkün, Patrick Anselme

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Neslihan WittekBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Berna Selin SayinBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Nurdem OkurBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Kevin WittekBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Naciye GülBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Fatma OeksuezBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Onur GüntürkünBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
Patrick AnselmeBiopsychology department, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Making decisions and investing effort to obtain rewards may depend on various factors, such as the delay to reward, the probability of its occurrence, and the information that can be collected about it. As predicted by various theories, pigeons and other animals indeed mind these factors when deciding. Methods: We now implemented a task in which pigeons were allowed to choose among three options and to peck at the chosen key to improve the conditions of reward delivery. Pecking more at a first color reduced the 12-s delay before food was delivered with a 33.3% chance, pecking more at a second color increased the initial 33.3% chance of food delivery but did not reduce the 12-s delay, and pecking more at a third color reduced the delay before information was provided whether the trial will be rewarded with a 33.3% chance after 12 s. Results: Pigeons' preference (delay vs. probability, delay vs. information, and probability vs. information), as well as their pecking effort for the chosen option, were analyzed. Our results indicate that hungry pigeons preferred to peck for delay reduction but did not work more for that option than for probability increase, which was the most profitable alternative and did not induce more pecking effort. In this task, information was the least preferred and induced the lowest level of effort. Refed pigeons showed no preference for any option but did not drastically reduce the average amounts of effort invested. Discussion: These results are discussed in the context of species-specific ecological conditions that could constrain current foraging theories.

Indexed as

effortinformationmotivationpigeonpreferencereinforcement schedule

Identifiers

PMID38979068
PMCPMC11229172

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.