Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39147833›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2024

Differential patch-leaving behavior during probabilistic foraging in humans and gerbils.

Lasse Güldener, Parthiban Saravanakumar, Max F K Happel, Frank W Ohl, Maike Vollmer, Stefan Pollmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors.

Lasse GüldenerDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University, 39106, Magdeburg, Germany. lasse.gueldener@ovgu.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6315-438X
Parthiban SaravanakumarDepartment of Systems Physiology of Learning, Leibniz-Institute for Neurobiology, 39118, Magdeburg, Germany.
Max F K HappelDepartment of Systems Physiology of Learning, Leibniz-Institute for Neurobiology, 39118, Magdeburg, Germany.
Frank W OhlDepartment of Systems Physiology of Learning, Leibniz-Institute for Neurobiology, 39118, Magdeburg, Germany.
Maike VollmerDepartment of Systems Physiology of Learning, Leibniz-Institute for Neurobiology, 39118, Magdeburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2227-5104
Stefan PollmannDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Otto-von-Guericke-University, 39106, Magdeburg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) 425899996e CRC 1436 (sub-project C02)
6 · The paper itself

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

GerbillinaeAnimalsBehavior, AnimalFeeding BehaviorFemaleHumansMaleReward

Identifiers

PMID39147833
PMCPMC11327252

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.