Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40699383›Full record

ReviewBiological cybernetics2025

Understanding human visual foraging: a review.

Tómas Kristjánsson, Árni Kristjánsson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biological cybernetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Tómas KristjánssonUniversity of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. tomakris@hi.is.
Árni KristjánssonUniversity of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland. ak@hi.is.

Funding

Icelandic Research Fund 228366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual foraging tasks provide great insights into how organisms orient within their visual environment. These tasks are useful for simultaneously investigating concepts often addressed separately, such as attentional guidance, working memory, and strategy. Foraging tasks enable the study of continuous real-world visual exploration and how information about the environment is gathered. They yield rich and multifaceted datasets and can provide insights into the mechanisms of visual attention, visual search, visual memory, and other cognitive factors in a setting more closely resembling how we employ those factors in the real world. We provide a review of the literature and discuss the pros and cons of different ways of understanding and explaining human foraging. A popular approach has been to test whether foraging performance fits certain mathematical rules, such as the marginal value theorem, or so-called Lévy flights. We question the usefulness of such approaches, in particular in the context human foraging (or the foraging of any organism with a sizeable nervous system). The goals and rewards that determine foraging behavior are multifaceted, and understanding those will bring us closer to understanding how humans interact with the world. The usefulness of assessing whether performance falls in line with a particular mathematical rule is, in our opinion, questionable and resources may have been wasted on trying to answer such questions, instead of focusing on the rich insights that foraging data provides about vision, attentional selection, visual short-term memory and the gathering of information.

Indexed as

AttentionVisual PerceptionHumans

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.