Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42156575›Full record

ArticleCommunications psychology2026

Stochastic choice drives variability in patch foraging decisions in humans and rats.

Emma V Scholey, Matthew A J Apps, Mark D Humphries

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 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

3 authors.

Emma V ScholeyCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. e.v.scholey@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2864-8939
Matthew A J AppsCentre for Human Brain Health, School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5793-2202
Mark D HumphriesSchool of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Mark.Humphries@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1906-2581

Funding

RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BB/R010668/2RCUK | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BB/X013111/1RCUK | Medical Research Council (MRC) MR/N013913/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Staying to exploit remaining resources or leaving to seek better options elsewhere is a fundamental decision across species. Optimal patch foraging theories propose deterministic rules for when to leave a depleting resource but real foragers show considerable variability in when they leave. Decisions between simultaneously-presented options are often assumed to follow a stochastic decision policy, adding randomness into the choice process to allow for exploration of potentially better alternatives. Whether a stochastic choice policy can account for variability in sequential foraging decisions, and what predictions such a policy makes for the mechanisms of foraging choice, are unknown. Here using patch foraging datasets in both humans (n = 39, n = 29) and rats (n = 8), we show that foragers making a stochastic choice of when to leave a patch is sufficient to explain their variability. We also show stochastic choice makes two unintuitive predictions, which we validate in our data. First, under a wide range of conditions, stochastic choice makes foragers' leaving variability independent of the rewards available in the environment. Second, that foragers use a suboptimal internal function for setting their choice stochasticity from their environment's average reward rate. Our findings suggest stochastic choice is an underappreciated but powerful contributor to foraging decisions, and highlight how behavioural variability, which is often overlooked, can reveal the algorithmic underpinning of decisions.

Identifiers

PMID42156575
PMCPMC13447090

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.