Back

Sex differences in exploration-exploitation strategies during home-cage decision making

Murrell, C. L.; Legaria, A. A.; McCullough, K. B.; Nwacha, A.; Nasiru, M. O.; Alves Ferreira Dias, S.; Chase, R.; Barrett, M. R.; Gaidica, M.; Hiratani, N.; Creed, M. C.; Dougherty, J. D.; Maloney, S. E.; Kravitz, A. V.

2026-04-06 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.04.02.716124 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The exploration-exploitation trade-off refers to the conflict between using known strategies that reliably yield reward (exploitation) and sampling uncertain options that might yield better outcomes (exploration). Dysregulation of this balance is implicated in neuropsychiatric disease, and while sex differences in this balance have been described, the biological bases remain unclear. To quantify sex differences in this trade-off, we tested mice (n=74 male, 62 female) on four home-cage based foraging tasks with an operant pellet dispensing device, Feeding Experimentation Device 3 (FED3). Mice completed the tasks continuously over multiple days and the tasks were their only source of food. Across multiple tasks, males showed higher win-stay behaviour than females, indicating greater exploitation of previously rewarded actions, an effect that was modest in size but highly significant. Power analyses revealed that >30 mice per sex were needed to detect these modest but significant sex differences with 80% power. No consistent sex differences were observed in pellet intake, suggesting that differences in exploitation did not reflect differences in hunger drive or demand for pellets. Exploitation is a more efficient strategy when environmental parameters are fixed, while exploration can be more advantageous when parameters such as reward locations are changing and uncertain. We tested this idea by re-running our mice in a probabilistic foraging task, where actions led to uncertain probabilities of reward. While males continued to show higher levels of win-stay behaviour on this task, this no longer led to increases in accuracy. Behavioural modelling also supported this framework, demonstrating that stronger win-stay behaviour was most advantageous in deterministic models, and less advantageous in probabilistic models. Together, our findings demonstrate that male and female mice have small but significant differences in their exploration-exploitation balance, which leads to more accurate foraging in certain, but not uncertain, environments.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 2%
17.2%
2
The Journal of Neuroscience
928 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.3%
3
Biological Psychiatry
119 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 19%
6.3%
5
Molecular Psychiatry
242 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.8%
6
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.8%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 33%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
8
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
9
Neuropsychopharmacology
134 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.5%
10
Neuron
282 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.0%
11
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.3%
12
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.3%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 26%
2.3%
14
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
15
Genes, Brain and Behavior
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
16
Molecular Metabolism
105 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
17
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 22%
1.9%
18
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.6%
20
Brain, Behavior, and Immunity
105 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.1%
22
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
46 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
25
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
27
Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%