ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Probabilistic inference and Bayesian-like estimation in animals: Empirical evidence.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial priors affect sensory weighting in navigation and landing in Egyptian fruit bats.The Journal of experimental biology · 2025Article
- Probabilistic inference and Bayesian-like estimation in animals: Empirical evidence.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Multiple context discrimination in adult rats: sex variability and dynamics of time-dependent generalization of an aversive memory.Learning & memory (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals often make decisions without perfect knowledge of environmental parameters like the quality of an encountered food patch or a potential mate. Theoreticians often assume animals make such decisions using a Bayesian updating process that combines prior information about the frequency distribution of resources in the environment with sample information from an encountered resource; such a process leads to decisions that maximize fitness, given the available information. I examine three aspects of empirical work that shed light on the idea that animals can make such decisions in a Bayesian-like manner. First, many animals are sensitive to variance differences in behavioral options, one metric used to characterize frequency distributions. Second, several species use information about the relative frequency of preferred versus nonpreferred items in different populations to make probabilistic inferences about samples taken from populations in a manner that results in maximizing the likelihood of obtaining a preferred reward. Third, the predictions of Bayesian models often match the behavior of individuals in two main approaches. One approach compares behavior to models that make different assumptions about how individuals estimate the quality of an environmental parameter. The patch exploitation behavior of nine species of birds and mammals has matched the predictions of Bayesian models. The other approach compares the behavior of individuals who learn, through experience, different frequency distributions of resources in their environment. The behavior of three bird species and bumblebees exploiting food patches and fruit flies selecting mates is influenced by their experience learning different frequency distributions of food and mates, respectively, in ways consistent with Bayesian models. These studies lend support to the idea that animals may combine prior and sample information in a Bayesian-like manner to make decisions under uncertainty, but additional work on a greater diversity of species is required to better understand the generality of this ability.
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.