Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748189›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

Research on re-searching: interrupted foraging is not disrupted foraging.

Injae Hong, Jeremy M Wolfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Injae HongVisual Attention Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02135, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3322-5938
Jeremy M WolfeVisual Attention Lab, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 02135, USA. jwolfe@bwh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Prevalence effects in visual search: Theoretical and practical implicationsR01EY017001 · NEI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Jeremy M Wolfe · 2007 to 2026
$8.2M
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health NIH-EY017001National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2022R1A6A3A03063539National Science Foundation NSF-2146617NEI NIH HHS R01 EY017001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In classic visual search, observers typically search for the presence of a target in a scene or display. In foraging tasks, there may be multiple targets in the same display (or "patch"). Observers typically search for and collect these target items in one patch until they decide to leave that patch and move to the next one. This is a highly rule-governed behavior. The current study investigated whether these rules are disrupted when the foraging is interrupted in various manners. In Experiment 1, the foraging was briefly interrupted and then resumed in the same patch. In Experiments 2 and 3, the foraging in each patch either ended voluntarily or compulsorily after a fixed amount of time. In these cases, foraging resumed in a patch only after all patches were visited. Overall, the rules of foraging remained largely intact, though Experiment 2 shows that foraging rules can be overridden by the demand characteristics of the task. The results show that participants tended to perform approximately consistently despite interruptions. The results suggest that foraging behavior in a relatively simple foraging environment is resilient and not easily disrupted by interruption.

Indexed as

AttentionAdultFemaleHumansMaleVisual PerceptionYoung AdultForagingInterruptionMarginal value theoremRevisitationVisual search

Identifiers

PMID38748189
PMCPMC11096138

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.