ArticleScientific reports2024
Linking cognitive strategy, neural mechanism, and movement statistics in group foraging behaviors.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Neural Bases of Collective Social Behavior and Group Interactions across Species.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Neural mechanisms of food preference and reward processing: a review of multifaceted influencing factors and intervention strategies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Computational Urban Ecology of New York City Rats.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foraging for food is a rich and ubiquitous animal behavior that involves complex cognitive decisions, and interactions between different individuals and species. There has been exciting recent progress in understanding multi-agent foraging behavior from cognitive, neuroscience, and statistical perspectives, but integrating these perspectives can be elusive. This paper seeks to unify these perspectives, allowing statistical analysis of observational animal movement data to shed light on the viability of cognitive models of foraging strategies. We start with cognitive agents with internal preferences expressed as value functions, and implement this in a biologically plausible neural network, and an equivalent statistical model, where statistical predictors of agents' movements correspond to the components of the value functions. We test this framework by simulating foraging agents and using Bayesian statistical modeling to correctly identify the factors that best predict the agents' behavior. As further validation, we use this framework to analyze an open-source locust foraging dataset. Finally, we collect new multi-agent real-world bird foraging data, and apply this method to analyze the preferences of different species. Together, this work provides an initial roadmap to integrate cognitive, neuroscience, and statistical approaches for reasoning about animal foraging in complex multi-agent environments.
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.