↓ Skip to main content

Bursts and Heavy Tails in Temporal and Sequential Dynamics of Foraging Decisions

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bursts and Heavy Tails in Temporal and Sequential Dynamics of Foraging Decisions
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003759
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kanghoon Jung, Hyeran Jang, Jerald D. Kralik, Jaeseung Jeong

Abstract

A fundamental understanding of behavior requires predicting when and what an individual will choose. However, the actual temporal and sequential dynamics of successive choices made among multiple alternatives remain unclear. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that there is a general bursting property in both the timing and sequential patterns of foraging decisions. We conducted a foraging experiment in which rats chose among four different foods over a continuous two-week time period. Regarding when choices were made, we found bursts of rapidly occurring actions, separated by time-varying inactive periods, partially based on a circadian rhythm. Regarding what was chosen, we found sequential dynamics in affective choices characterized by two key features: (a) a highly biased choice distribution; and (b) preferential attachment, in which the animals were more likely to choose what they had previously chosen. To capture the temporal dynamics, we propose a dual-state model consisting of active and inactive states. We also introduce a satiation-attainment process for bursty activity, and a non-homogeneous Poisson process for longer inactivity between bursts. For the sequential dynamics, we propose a dual-control model consisting of goal-directed and habit systems, based on outcome valuation and choice history, respectively. This study provides insights into how the bursty nature of behavior emerges from the interaction of different underlying systems, leading to heavy tails in the distribution of behavior over time and choices.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Switzerland 1 3%
Portugal 1 3%
France 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 29 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Master 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Neuroscience 6 17%
Computer Science 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Physics and Astronomy 3 9%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,219
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,061
of 243,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#119
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.