ArticleCommunications biology2024
Differential patch-leaving behavior during probabilistic foraging in humans and gerbils.
Article in Communications biology, 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.
- Strategic development of a buffalo farming framework and optimization of the foraging behaviour using mathematical models.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Article
- An interdisciplinary linked-lives approach to individual differences in social behaviour.Nature human behaviour · 2025Review
- Reward-reset interval timing drives patch foraging decisions through neural state transitions in dorsomedial striatum.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foraging confronts animals, including humans, with the need to balance exploration and exploitation: exploiting a resource until it depletes and then deciding when to move to a new location for more resources. Research across various species has identified rules for when to leave a depleting patch, influenced by environmental factors like patch quality. Here we compare human and gerbil patch-leaving behavior through two analogous tasks: a visual search for humans and a physical foraging task for gerbils, both involving patches with randomly varying initial rewards that decreased exponentially. Patch-leaving decisions of humans but not gerbils follow an incremental mechanism based on reward encounters that is considered optimal for maximizing reward yields in variable foraging environments. The two species also differ in their giving-up times, and some human subjects tend to overharvest. However, gerbils and individual humans who do not overharvest are equally sensitive to declining collection rates in accordance with the marginal value theorem. Altogether this study introduces a paradigm for a between-species comparison on how to resolve the exploitation-exploration dilemma.
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.