ArticleVision research2024
No matter what you do, travel is travel in visual foraging.
Article in Vision research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In visual foraging, foragers collect multiple items from a series of visual displays (or "patches"). When the goal is to maximize the total or the rate of collection of target items, foragers must decide when to leave a depleted patch given that "traveling" from one patch to another incurs a temporal cost. In three experiments, we investigated whether the interposition of a secondary task during travel between patches in visual foraging altered patch-leaving behavior. Over the course of 10- or 30-minute experiments, participants foraged in simulated "berry patches" and traveled to the next patch at will. While they traveled, they either actively performed a secondary task or simply observed passing visual stimuli. Travel time was varied across conditions. The addition of a secondary task, regardless of its relevance to visual foraging, to traveling, or to both, did not impact patch-leaving times in the primary visual foraging task. In Experiment 1 and more weakly in Experiment 2, the patch-leaving decision was based on how long the travel took as predicted by the Marginal Value Theorem (MVT). In Experiment 3, however, patch-leaving did not depend on travel time. Participants 'overharvested' in a manner that suggests that they may have adopted rules different from those of MVT. Across all three experiments, patch-leaving did not depend on the nature of the travel.
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.