Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41931516›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Best-of-n decision making by human groups.

Nicolas Coucke, Marco Dorigo, Axel Cleeremans, Mary Katherine Heinrich

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Nicolas CouckeIRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4173-7693
Marco DorigoIRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Axel CleeremansConsciousness, Cognition and Computation Group, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Mary Katherine HeinrichIRIDIA, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1595-8487

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collective decision making is a fundamental aspect of group behavior in both animals and humans, and often involves reaching a consensus on the best of n options, using empirical evidence. Although many parallels have been drawn between human and animal collective decisions, collective human behavior is rarely studied in the type of embodied scenarios that animals are often faced with. In this study, we placed human groups in a virtual setup similar to nest site selection in social animals, in which they explored a shared environment and reached a consensus based on their observations of empirical features. In groups of up to 10, participants had to reach consensus on the empirically largest of four candidate sites without verbal communication, instead using movement-based interactions in a custom-developed 3D virtual environment for online multi-participant experiments. The results showed that the speed and accuracy of consensus was importantly modulated by perceptual difficulty and information availability, but that no speed-accuracy trade-off was present. Participants attempted to reach consensus on the empirically largest site by flexibly adapting their use of social information to perceptual difficulty, their spatial position, and the time already spent supporting some option. When a minority of informed individuals were present, these individuals exercised greater independence and influenced the group to faster and more accurate consensus. These results extend previous findings on social decision making strategies in humans to nonverbal scenarios akin to those of social insects.

Indexed as

Decision MakingSocial BehaviorAdultAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleSocial GroupYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41931516
PMCPMC13048438

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.