Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22761685›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Modeling collective animal behavior with a cognitive perspective: a methodological framework.

Sebastian Weitz, Stéphane Blanco, Richard Fournier, Jacques Gautrais, Christian Jost, Guy Theraulaz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Away from the herd: loneliness as a dysfunction of social alignment.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A data-driven method for reconstructing and modelling social interactions in moving animal groups.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Multi-scale analysis and modelling of collective migration in biological systems.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  9. Collective Motion in Human Crowds.Current directions in psychological science · 2018
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Ontogeny of collective behavior reveals a simple attraction rule.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sebastian WeitzUniversité de Toulouse, UPS, INPT, LAPLACE, Laboratoire Plasma et Conversion d'Energie, Toulouse, France. weitz@laplace.univ-tlse.fr
Stéphane Blanco
Richard Fournier
Jacques Gautrais
Christian Jost
Guy Theraulaz
Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition Animale · FRUniversité Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRLaboratoire Plasma et Conversion d'Energie · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The last decades have seen an increasing interest in modeling collective animal behavior. Some studies try to reproduce as accurately as possible the collective dynamics and patterns observed in several animal groups with biologically plausible, individual behavioral rules. The objective is then essentially to demonstrate that the observed collective features may be the result of self-organizing processes involving quite simple individual behaviors. Other studies concentrate on the objective of establishing or enriching links between collective behavior researches and cognitive or physiological ones, which then requires that each individual rule be carefully validated. Here we discuss the methodological consequences of this additional requirement. Using the example of corpse clustering in ants, we first illustrate that it may be impossible to discriminate among alternative individual rules by considering only observational data collected at the group level. Six individual behavioral models are described: They are clearly distinct in terms of individual behaviors, they all reproduce satisfactorily the collective dynamics and distribution patterns observed in experiments, and we show theoretically that it is strictly impossible to discriminate two of these models even in the limit of an infinite amount of data whatever the accuracy level. A set of methodological steps are then listed and discussed as practical ways to partially overcome this problem. They involve complementary experimental protocols specifically designed to address the behavioral rules successively, conserving group-level data for the overall model validation. In this context, we highlight the importance of maintaining a sharp distinction between model enunciation, with explicit references to validated biological concepts, and formal translation of these concepts in terms of quantitative state variables and fittable functional dependences. Illustrative examples are provided of the benefits expected during the often long and difficult process of refining a behavioral model, designing adapted experimental protocols and inversing model parameters.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorCognitionModels, StatisticalAnimalsAntsBehavior, AnimalCadaverDecision MakingEnvironmentModels, BiologicalSocial Behavior

Identifiers

PMID22761685
PMCPMC3383699
OpenAlexW2133994372

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.