Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23181162›Full record

ArticleCommunicative & integrative biology2012

Robots in the service of animal behavior.

Barrett A Klein, Joey Stein, Ryan C Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communicative & integrative biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Of rats and robots: A mutual learning paradigm.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Model-based feedback control of live zebrafish behavior via interaction with a robotic replica.IEEE transactions on robotics : a publication of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. From uni- to multimodality: towards an integrative view on anuran communication.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2014
    Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Barrett A KleinDepartment of Biology; University of Wisconsin-La Crosse; La Crosse, WI USA.
Joey Stein
Ryan C Taylor
Salisbury University · USUniversity of Wisconsin–La Crosse · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As reading fiction can challenge us to better understand fact, using fake animals can sometimes serve as our best solution to understanding the behavior of real animals. The use of dummies, doppelgangers, fakes, and physical models have served to elicit behaviors in animal experiments since the early history of behavior studies, and, more recently, robotic animals have been employed by researchers to further coax behaviors from their study subjects. Here, we review the use of robots in the service of animal behavior, and describe in detail the production and use of one type of robot - "faux" frogs - to test female responses to multisensory courtship signals. The túngara frog (Physalaemus pustulosus) has been a study subject for investigating multimodal signaling, and we discuss the benefits and drawbacks of using the faux frogs we have designed, with the larger aim of inspiring other scientists to consider the appropriate application of physical models and robots in their research.

Indexed as

faux frogmate choicemultimodal signalingphysical modelsrobofrogrobotssexual selectiontúngara frog

Identifiers

PMID23181162
PMCPMC3502209
OpenAlexW2136494377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.