Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40760216›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

Feedback based on simple strategies facilitates strategy execution and selection in foraging.

Hsuan-Yu Lin, Bettina von Helversen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Hsuan-Yu LinDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Hochschulring 18, 28359, Bremen, Germany. hslin@uni-bremen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2570-5379
Bettina von HelversenDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Human and Health Sciences, University of Bremen, Hochschulring 18, 28359, Bremen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2004-6922

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research has shown that human participants performed suboptimally in patch-leaving behavior during foraging tasks. This suboptimal performance stemmed from two primary sources: Participants often adopted a strategy unsuited to the environment and failed to apply it optimally. The current study investigates whether providing feedback on participants' patch-leaving behavior can improve their performance by facilitating either a switch to a more effective strategy or an enhanced application of their existing strategy. All participants completed a patch-leaving task across three sessions: pre-feedback, feedback, and post-feedback. Their patch-leaving strategies in each session were identified through computational modeling. During the feedback session, participants received feedback based on either the fixed-time (FT) or giving-up-time (GUT) strategy. Most participants employed the GUT strategy in the pre-feedback session and showed improved performance in the post-feedback session. In the FT feedback condition, many participants switched to using the FT strategy in the post-feedback session. Participants who switched improved in performance, whereas those who continued using the GUT strategy did not. In contrast, in the GUT feedback condition, most participants continued using the GUT strategy but benefited from feedback due to a more precise execution of the GUT strategy in the post-feedback session. These results suggest that participants can adapt to a better-suited strategy or improve their application of a suboptimal strategy with appropriate feedback.

Indexed as

Feedback, PsychologicalPsychomotor PerformanceAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultComputational modelingDecision-makingForagingPatch-leaving

Identifiers

PMID40760216
PMCPMC12627158

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.