Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29282542›Full record

ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2017

Using Hidden Markov Models to characterise intermittent social behaviour in fish shoals.

Nikolai W F Bode, Michael J Seitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Nikolai W F BodeDepartment of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1UB, UK. nikolai.bode@bristol.ac.uk.
Michael J SeitzDepartment of Computer Science and Mathematics, Munich University of Applied Sciences, 80335, Munich, Germany.

Funding

Leverhulme Trust Leverhulme Early Career Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The movement of animals in groups is widespread in nature. Understanding this phenomenon presents an important problem in ecology with many applications that range from conservation to robotics. Underlying all group movements are interactions between individual animals and it is therefore crucial to understand the mechanisms of this social behaviour. To date, despite promising methodological developments, there are few applications to data of practical statistical techniques that inferentially investigate the extent and nature of social interactions in group movement. We address this gap by demonstrating the usefulness of a Hidden Markov Model approach to characterise individual-level social movement in published trajectory data on three-spined stickleback shoals (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and novel data on guppy shoals (Poecilia reticulata). With these models, we formally test for speed-mediated social interactions and verify that they are present. We further characterise this inferred social behaviour and find that despite the substantial shoal-level differences in movement dynamics between species, it is qualitatively similar in guppies and sticklebacks. It is intermittent, occurring in varying numbers of individuals at different time points. The speeds of interacting fish follow a bimodal distribution, indicating that they are either stationary or move at a preferred mean speed, and social fish with more social neighbours move at higher speeds, on average. Our findings and methodology present steps towards characterising social behaviour in animal groups.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalSocial BehaviorAnimalsMarkov ChainsMotor ActivityPoeciliaSmegmamorphaAnimal movementBehavioural statesCollective behaviourHidden Markov ModelSocial interactions

Identifiers

PMID29282542
PMCPMC5847151

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.