ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2016
A framework for analyzing the robustness of movement models to variable step discretization.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The 4th Dimension in Animal Movement: The Effect of Temporal Resolution and Landscape Configuration in Habitat-Selection Analyses.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Rayleigh step-selection functions and connections to continuous-time mechanistic movement models.Movement ecology · 2024Article
- A random walk model that accounts for space occupation and movements of a large herbivore.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A unifying theory for two-dimensional spatial redistribution kernels with applications in population spread modelling.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2020Article
- Understanding decision making in a food-caching predator using hidden Markov models.Movement ecology · 2020Article
- Robustness of movement models: can models bridge the gap between temporal scales of data sets and behavioural processes?Journal of mathematical biology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When sampling animal movement paths, the frequency at which location measurements are attempted is a critical feature for data analysis. Important quantities derived from raw data, e.g. travel distance or sinuosity, can differ largely based on the temporal resolution of the data. Likewise, when movement models are fitted to data, parameter estimates have been demonstrated to vary with sampling rate. Thus, biological statements derived from such analyses can only be made with respect to the resolution of the underlying data, limiting extrapolation of results and comparison between studies. To address this problem, we investigate whether there are models that are robust against changes in temporal resolution. First, we propose a mathematically rigorous framework, in which we formally define robustness as a model property. We then use the framework for a thorough assessment of a range of basic random walk models, in which we also show how robustness relates to other probabilistic concepts. While we found robustness to be a strong condition met by few models only, we suggest a new method to extend models so as to make them robust. Our framework provides a new systematic, mathematically founded approach to the question if, and how, sampling rate of movement paths affects statistical inference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26852021What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.