Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40400528›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Foraging through emotions: emotional stimuli and participants' trait anxiety shape visual foraging.

Jérôme Tagu, Christelle Robert, Stéphanie Mathey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. 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. FoMo: A unifying theory of visual foraging.PLoS computational biology · 2026
    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

3 authors.

Jérôme TaguUniv. Bordeaux, LabPsy, UR 4139, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2331-7433
Christelle RobertUniv. Bordeaux, LabPsy, UR 4139, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3497-6100
Stéphanie MatheyUniv. Bordeaux, LabPsy, UR 4139, F-33000 Bordeaux, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5453-8418

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work suggests that target selection during visual foraging is achieved through competition between different factors (e.g. proximity, priming, value) that orient attention towards one of the possible targets. However, this research has mainly involved simple stimuli such as coloured dots. Here, we investigated whether target selection is sensitive to the emotional content of the stimuli during visual foraging, using real-world photographs eliciting negative, neutral or positive emotions. Moreover, based on results from single-target visual search, we examined how participants' trait anxiety influences foraging behaviour. Seventy-five observers completed three foraging tasks corresponding to three emotional-valence conditions (positive, neutral, negative). The task was to select all the targets (pre-specified emotional images) as fast as possible while ignoring neutral distractors. Observers' foraging strategy (i.e. selection order, number of switches between target types) and performance (i.e. selection times, number of distractor selections) were measured. We also assessed participants' trait anxiety. The results revealed that negative emotional stimuli significantly influenced both foraging strategy and performance. Furthermore, the effect of negative emotion on foraging performance was amplified for participants with high trait anxiety. These findings suggest that emotional characteristics of both targets and participants contribute to target selection during visual foraging.

Indexed as

attentionemotiontarget selectiontrait anxietyvisual foragingvisual search

Identifiers

PMID40400528
PMCPMC12092124

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.