Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29491958›Full record

ArticleCurrent zoology2017

Technical and conceptual considerations for using animated stimuli in studies of animal behavior.

Laura Chouinard-Thuly, Stefanie Gierszewski, Gil G Rosenthal, Simon M Reader, Guillaume Rieucau, Kevin L Woo, Robert Gerlai, Cynthia Tedore, Spencer J Ingley, John R Stowers and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current zoology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Mate Choice in Western Mosquitofish (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Naturalistic neuroscience and virtual reality.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Laura Chouinard-ThulyDepartment of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1B1.
Stefanie GierszewskiResearch Group of Ecology and Behavioral Biology, Institute of Biology, University of Siegen, Adolf-Reichwein Str. 2, Siegen 57068, Germany.
Gil G RosenthalEcology & Evolutionary Biology, Texas A&M University, 3258 TAMU College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Simon M ReaderDepartment of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1B1.
Guillaume RieucauDepartment of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, 3000 Northeast 151 Street, North Miami, FL 33181, USA.
Kevin L WooSUNY Empire State College, Metropolitan Center, 325 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10013-1005, USA.
Robert GerlaiDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1C6.
Cynthia TedoreLund Vision Group, Department of Biology, Lund University, Sölvegatan 35, Lund 22362, Sweden.
Spencer J IngleyDepartment of Biology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#3280, Coker Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
John R StowersResearch Institute of Molecular Pathology IMP, Vienna Biocenter VBC, Dr. Bohr-Gasse 7, Vienna 1030, Austria.
Joachim G FrommenDepartment of Behavioural Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Bern, Wohlenstrasse 50a, Hinterkappelen 3032, Switzerland.
Francine L DolinsDepartment of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Road, Dearborn, MI 48128, USA.
Klaudia WitteResearch Group of Ecology and Behavioral Biology, Institute of Biology, University of Siegen, Adolf-Reichwein Str. 2, Siegen 57068, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid technical advances in the field of computer animation (CA) and virtual reality (VR) have opened new avenues in animal behavior research. Animated stimuli are powerful tools as they offer standardization, repeatability, and complete control over the stimulus presented, thereby "reducing" and "replacing" the animals used, and "refining" the experimental design in line with the 3Rs. However, appropriate use of these technologies raises conceptual and technical questions. In this review, we offer guidelines for common technical and conceptual considerations related to the use of animated stimuli in animal behavior research. Following the steps required to create an animated stimulus, we discuss (I) the creation, (II) the presentation, and (III) the validation of CAs and VRs. Although our review is geared toward computer-graphically designed stimuli, considerations on presentation and validation also apply to video playbacks. CA and VR allow both new behavioral questions to be addressed and existing questions to be addressed in new ways, thus we expect a rich future for these methods in both ultimate and proximate studies of animal behavior.

Indexed as

animal behavioranimated stimuluscomputer animationexperimental designvirtual realityvisual communication.

Identifiers

PMID29491958
PMCPMC5804155

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.