Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42236810›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Quantitative measurement of agonistic behaviors of intra- and interspecifics of Gryllus bimaculatus and Acheta domesticus by using DeepLabCut.

Gilbert Audira, Petrus Siregar, Kevin Adi Kurnia, Tzong-Rong Ger, Chung-Der Hsiao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Gilbert AudiraDepartment of Bioscience Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, 320314, Taiwan.
Petrus SiregarDepartment of Bioscience Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, 320314, Taiwan.
Kevin Adi KurniaDepartment of Bioscience Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, 320314, Taiwan.
Tzong-Rong GerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, 300093, Taiwan. sunbow@nycu.edu.tw.
Chung-Der HsiaoDepartment of Bioscience Technology, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan, 320314, Taiwan. cdhsiao@cycu.edu.tw.

Funding

National Science and Technology Council 113-2313-B-033-001-MY3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal social behavior, such as agonistic behavior, has been extensively studied for a long time since it is one of the key factors that influence the survivability and reproductive success in many animals, including crickets. Gryllus bimaculatus, a field cricket, and Acheta domesticus, a house cricket, are two cricket species whose social behaviors have been extensively studied. However, the interspecific behaviors of these crickets had not been assessed and comprehensively compared to their behaviors when encountering their conspecifics. Moreover, most of the behavior studies in crickets still rely on traditional observational methods, which are labor-intensive and prone to observer bias. Fortunately, due to the advancement in machine learning, a markerless pose estimation method has revolutionized behavioral analysis in animal studies by enabling precise, automated tracking of body parts without the need for physical markers, reducing stress and allowing for naturalistic behavior in animals. Therefore, the study aimed to demonstrate a comprehensive methodology in analyzing the intra- and interspecies social behaviors of G. bimaculatus and A. domesticus by DeepLabCut (DLC), a deep learning-based pose estimation tool. Based on the results, the trained model that was used in the current study showed a relatively high accuracy after undergoing several rounds of training, as indicated by the relatively high value of average likelihood (0.94) and low value of average low likelihood percentage (3.85%) of each detected body part in every tested cricket. Meanwhile, GLMM analysis revealed no significant differences between the proposed method and manual scoring in both calculated aggressive-related behavior endpoints. Moreover, the system achieved high sensitivity with an average of 0.8, with acceptable precision with an average of 0.7 for both behaviors, demonstrating that the automated approach provides accurate and reliable quantification of aggressive interactions in paired crickets. Next, in terms of the cricket's social behaviors, males of G. bimaculatus displayed aggressive behaviors as indicated by statistically high overt physical combat count, which were followed by high locomotion and movement complexity, while a slightly higher posterior-oriented interaction count was observed in the male × female group of this species. Meanwhile, although overt physical combat behaviors still could be observed in males of A. domesticus, this cricket in other gender combinations did not display noticeable aggressive behaviors compared to G. bimaculatus. On the other hand, aggressive behaviors were still shown by both males and females during interspecific tests, though in a relatively lesser magnitude compared to intraspecific G. bimaculatus. Taken together, the present study highlighted the effectiveness of DLC for markerless pose estimation of crickets, emphasizing the potential of this methodology as an alternative to provide novel quantitative insights into the dynamics of their social interactions, and thus, paving the way for large-scale, reproducible research on animal social interactions that could advance our understanding of animal behaviors.

Indexed as

Agonistic BehaviorBehavior, AnimalGryllidaeAnimalsFemaleMaleSocial BehaviorSpecies SpecificityA. domesticusAgonistic behaviorsDeepLabCutG. bimaculatusInterspeciesIntraspecies

Identifiers

PMID42236810
PMCPMC13473611

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.