ArticleRoyal Society open science2026
Using computer games to explore foraging-predation trade-offs and spatial learning in humans.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Foraging requires organisms to balance energetic gains against multiple costs, including predation risk, while updating decisions as conditions change. Although these processes are well studied in animals, ecologically grounded paradigms for testing behavioural updating and cross-task generalization in humans remain limited. We developed two computer-game assays inspired by animal foraging research to examine how humans adjust behaviour under simulated predation risk, whether prior risk exposure affects later decisions and whether spatial performance generalizes across tasks. Participants completed a central-place open-field foraging task under safe and risky conditions and a maze-navigation task assessing spatial learning. Predation risk reduced foraging effort and increased hiding behaviour. Behavioural responses also depended on task order: individuals exposed to risk first showed attenuated shifts across contexts, indicating carryover effects and incomplete updating of environmental state. Spatial performance generalized across tasks under both safe and risky contexts. In the maze task, performance improved across trials with a negatively accelerated learning curve, consistent with spatial learning dynamics. These findings show that ecologically grounded computer games can reveal imperfect updating under changing risk while providing a controlled framework for studying human decision-making under ecological constraints.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.