Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34326537›Full record

ReviewLab animal2021

A review of 28 free animal-tracking software applications: current features and limitations.

Veronica Panadeiro, Alvaro Rodriguez, Jason Henry, Donald Wlodkowic, Magnus Andersson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Lab animal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Behavioral Assays in the Study of Olfaction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Veronica PanadeiroDepartment of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, A Coruña, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8085-537X
Alvaro RodriguezDepartment of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, Campus de Elviña, A Coruña, Spain. a.tajes@udc.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2690-090X
Jason HenryThe Neurotox Laboratory, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0059-3868
Donald WlodkowicThe Neurotox Laboratory, School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Magnus AnderssonDepartment of Physics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9835-3263

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Well-quantified laboratory studies can provide a fundamental understanding of animal behavior in ecology, ethology and ecotoxicology research. These types of studies require observation and tracking of each animal in well-controlled and defined arenas, often for long timescales. Thus, these experiments produce long time series and a vast amount of data that require the use of software applications to automate the analysis and reduce manual annotation. In this review, we examine 28 free software applications for animal tracking to guide researchers in selecting the software that might best suit a particular experiment. We also review the algorithms in the tracking pipeline of the applications, explain how specific techniques can fit different experiments, and finally, expose each approach's weaknesses and strengths. Our in-depth review includes last update, type of platform, user-friendliness, off- or online video acquisition, calibration method, background subtraction and segmentation method, species, multiple arenas, multiple animals, identity preservation, manual identity correction, data analysis and extra features. We found, for example, that out of 28 programs, only 3 include a calibration algorithm to reduce image distortion and perspective problems that affect accuracy and can result in substantial errors when analyzing trajectories and extracting mobility or explored distance. In addition, only 4 programs can directly export in-depth tracking and analysis metrics, only 5 are suited for tracking multiple unmarked animals for more than a few seconds and only 11 have been updated in the period 2019-2021.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwareAnimalsBehavior, Animal

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.