ArticleRoyal Society open science2024
The effect of target scarcity on visual foraging.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Foraging through emotions: emotional stimuli and participants' trait anxiety shape visual foraging.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- The effect of target scarcity on visual foraging.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have investigated the effect of target prevalence in combination with the effect of explicit target value on human visual foraging strategies, though the conclusions have been mixed. Some find that individuals have a bias towards high-value targets even when these targets are scarcer, while other studies find that this bias disappears when those targets are scarcer. In this study, we tested for a bias for scarce targets using standard feature versus conjunction visual foraging tasks, without an explicit value being given. Based on the idea of commodity theory and implicit value, we hypothesized that participants would show a scarcity bias. The bias was investigated using a Bayesian statistical model which has been developed for predicting target-by-target foraging behaviours. However, we found no evidence of a scarcity bias in our experiment, suggesting that participants did not inherently find rarer targets more rewarding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.