Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42118809›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2026

FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.

Alasdair D F Clarke, Anna E Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 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

2 authors.

Alasdair D F ClarkeDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7368-2351
Anna E HughesDepartment of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2677-1965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual foraging lies at the intersection of visual perception, decision-making and action planning. An attractive feature of this paradigm is that it generates a rich stream of sequential decision data. However, this presents a number of challenges for analysis. To this end, we have developed FoMo, a robust and flexible generative model for spatial-sequential data that allows prediction of participants' selection behaviour on a target-by-target basis. Building upon our initial work, we present an updated version of FoMo (Clarke, et al. PLOS Comput Biol. 18:e1009813, 2022)‌‌, which incorporates spatial structure allowing us to model organised spatial behaviours. FoMo provides estimates of a range of interpretable parameters, meaning we can use it to understand the causes of behavioural differences: for example, incorporating spatial-structure parameters improves model prediction accuracy for a number of visual foraging datasets, predominantly due to improvements for a subset of participants who use grid-following strategies. Our approach can also account for individual differences across the wide range of descriptive statistics that have previously been used to explore human and non-human animal behaviour, providing a unified framework for analysing these data.

Indexed as

Decision MakingVisual PerceptionAnimalsComputational BiologyHumans

Identifiers

PMID42118809
PMCPMC13186390

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.