The DOI matches its Crossref record; 58 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Animal Choice Behavior and the Evolution of Cognitive Architecture
Abstract
Animals process sensory information according to specific computational rules and, subsequently, form representations of their environments that form the basis for decisions and choices. The specific computational rules used by organisms will often be evolutionarily adaptive by generating higher probabilities of survival, reproduction, and resource acquisition. Experiments with enclosed colonies of bumblebees constrained to foraging on artificial flowers suggest that the bumblebee's cognitive architecture is designed to efficiently exploit floral resources from spatially structured environments given limits on memory and the neuronal processing of information. A non-linear relationship between the biomechanics of nectar extraction and rates of net energetic gain by individual bees may account for sensitivities to both the arithmetic mean and variance in reward distributions in flowers. Heuristic rules that lead to efficient resource exploitation may also lead to subjective misperception of likelihoods. Subjective probability formation may then be viewed as a problem in pattern recognition subject to specific sampling schemes and memory constraints.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Selection among a set of possible actions is a form of choice that can occur quickly, when speed is at a premium.”
From Decision Making in Recurrent Neuronal Circuits (2008) · cites this paper as Real, 1991
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.2.343 · Cited by 17,559
Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & AU (1986) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001 · Cited by 15,686
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk
Tobin, J. G. (1958) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2296205 · Cited by 3,990
Exposition of a New Theory on the Measurement of Risk
Bernoulli, D. (1954) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1909829 · Cited by 2,779
Gallistel, C. R. (1990) · Cited by 2,571
"Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom
Machina, M. J. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912631 · Cited by 1,519
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- BATTALIO, R.C., AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW 75: 597 (1985).
- BATTALIO, R.C., TESTING BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF CHOICE UNDER UNCERTAINTY - SOME INITIAL RESULTS, JOURNAL OF RISK AND UNCERTAINTY 3: 25 (1990).
- CARACO, T, QUANTITATIVE ANALYSES OF BEHAVIOR 6: 1 (1986).
- CARTAR, R.V., WHY ARE BUMBLE BEES RISK-SENSITIVE FORAGERS, BEHAVIORAL ECOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 26: 121 (1990).
- Heinrich, B., The Biology of Learning: 135 (1984).
- Menzel, R., Experimental Behavioral Ecology: 55 (1985).
- Newell, A., Foundations of Cognitive Science: 93 (1989).
- Pyke, G. H., The Ecology of Animal Movement: 7 (1983).
- Real, L. A., Behavioral Mechanisms in Diet Selection: 1 (1989).
- Rummelhart, D. E., Foundations of Cognitive Science: 133 (1989).
- Shettleworth, S. J., Advances in Analysis ofBehavior: 1 (1983).
- Simon, H. A., Foundations of Cognitive Science: 1 (1989).
- WILSON, B, TRANSFER OF RELATIONAL RULES IN MATCHING AND ODDITY LEARNING BY PIGEONS AND CORVIDS, QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SECTION B-COMPARATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY 37: 313 (1985).
- WUNDERLE, J.M., BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL 17: 371 (1986).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Schulze, C., & Hertwig, R. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104580 · Cited by 36
Metadata
- Authors
- Real, L. A.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Corresponding author
- Real, Leslie A.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1991-08-30
- Volume
- 253
- Issue
- 5023
- Pages
- 980-986
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W1973981488
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 59
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 5.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant and animal studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
- Keywords
- bumblebees, foraging behavior, cognitive architecture, animal decision-making, reward allocation, heuristic rules, subjective probability, memory constraints, pattern recognition, artificial flowers
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bees, Biomechanical Phenomena, Choice Behavior, Cognition, Biological Evolution, Mathematics, Models, Genetic, Probability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review