2026-10-14T04:39:57Z https://api.figshare.com/v2/oai

oai:figshare.com:article/34036540 2026-09-30T17:52:27Z category_15 category_24 category_45 category_734 category_64 portal_5 item_type_1 month_year_09_2026

<p>The Hunter-Gatherer Game with Predator.</p> Sergej A. E. Golowin (25145509) Niall W. Duncan (9177024) Faizan Shaikh (25145512) Christoph W. Korn (11657787) Neuroscience Evolutionary Biology Sociology Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified Cancer without requiring assumptions enabled formal comparison choices showed evidence sequential foraging task integrated value signals approach &# 8211 g ., reward humans adjust decision avoidance &# 8211 threat probabilities ), higher reward probabilities optimal action values individual decision features higher predation risk predation risk action values value structure sequential decision optimal policy relevant features decision features reward probability probabilistic reward xlink "> strongly reflected shared model remains unclear reduced reliance policies based parsimonious account optimization principles increased alignment immediate rewards future risks findings suggest feature policy enhanced integration creating contexts commonly framed avoidance contexts <p>See Methods (<a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014793#sec013" target="_blank">Section 4.3</a>, “Description of the Hunter–Gatherer Task With Predators”) for complete task details. Participants completed 72 sequential foraging environments (“forests”), each consisting of 8 consecutive time-points (trials). The goal of the game was to “survive” by keeping discrete energy points (maximum = 6) from depleting. At the beginning of a forest, energy levels were randomly set to 4 or 5. Each forest had two weather types displayed before the decision trials started. Each weather specified the probabilities of obtaining food, failing to forage, and (in threat environments) encountering a predator. At each time point, one weather type was randomly selected and participants chose between <b>foraging</b> and <b>waiting</b>. Successful foraging increased energy by 1–2 points, unsuccessful foraging decreased energy by 2 points, and waiting incurred a guaranteed loss of 1 energy point. In threat environments, predator encounters caused an additional loss of 3 energy points. The blue bar indicates the participant’s current energy level. The figure illustrates a forest overview (left), an example trial without predator threat (center), and an example trial with predator threat (right).</p> 2026-09-30T18:00:31Z Image Figure 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014793.g002 https://figshare.com/articles/figure/_p_The_Hunter-Gatherer_Game_with_Predator_p_/34036540 CC BY 4.0