ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2025
Machine learning to detect schedules using spatiotemporal data of behavior: A proof of concept.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning to detect schedules using spatiotemporal data of behavior: A proof of concept.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Machine Learning among Therapists Practicing Applied Behavior Analysis: A National Survey.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, the experimental analysis of behavior has relied on the single discrete response paradigm (e.g., key pecks, lever presses, screen clicks) to identify behavioral patterns. However, the development and availability of new technology allow researchers to move beyond this paradigm and use other features to detect schedules. Thus, our study used spatiotemporal data to compare the accuracy of four machine learning algorithms (i.e., logistic regression, support vector classifiers, random forests, and artificial neural networks) in detecting the presence and the components of time-based schedules in 12 rats involved in a behavioral experiment. Using spatiotemporal data, the algorithms accurately identified the presence or absence of programmed schedules and correctly differentiated between fixed- and variable-space schedules. That said, our analyses failed to identify an algorithm to discriminate fixed-time from variable-time schedules. Furthermore, none of the algorithms performed systematically better than the others. Our findings provide preliminary support for the utility of using spatiotemporal data with machine learning to detect stimulus schedules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.