Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?

Autores
Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto; Corley, Juan Carlos
Año de publicación
2011
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Preference experiments are common in animal behavior research. In most cases, these are approached using completeblock design experiments, after which data are processed with ANOVA/T 2 or similar statistical tests. Using recent developments in statistics, we compared dierent experimental designs for testing animal preferences:a complete block design; and two incomplete block designs: paired (homogeneous), and heterogeneous. We simulatedexperiments and compared the performance of each design under the following scenarios: (i) a simple one withmoderate differences in attractiveness between stimuli, (ii) a glaring case, where one stimulus is much more attractivethan the others, and (iii) a heteroscedasticity case, where stimuli differ in attractiveness. Finally we asked how anincreasing number of stimuli affect the precision of estimations.    The paired design was the best performing experimental design overall, whereas the heterogeneous one alsoperformed acceptably, sometimes outperforming the paired. On the other hand, the complete design presented anacceptable performance only when a low number of replicates are considered and when testing a small number ofstimuli. The main disadvantages of complete designs were that they provide limited information about the lowerranked stimuli, and ill manage situations of heterogeneity in the variance of the stimuli.    We also note that the complete designs lack flexibility and may be more complex than generally thought. Weconclude that incomplete designs may prove the most reliable option for understanding animal preferences. Suchdesigns offer the important advantage of allowing a sequential addition of new stimuli in the comparisons.
Fil: Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; Argentina
Fil: Corley, Juan Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; Argentina
Materia
Animal Preference
Thurstone
Specificity
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/280788
Acceder
id CONICETDig_5cf12c7edfc22fb1a46d926751413d7b
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/280788
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?Bruzzone, Octavio AugustoCorley, Juan CarlosAnimal PreferenceThurstoneSpecificityhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Preference experiments are common in animal behavior research. In most cases, these are approached using completeblock design experiments, after which data are processed with ANOVA/T 2 or similar statistical tests. Using recent developments in statistics, we compared dierent experimental designs for testing animal preferences:a complete block design; and two incomplete block designs: paired (homogeneous), and heterogeneous. We simulatedexperiments and compared the performance of each design under the following scenarios: (i) a simple one withmoderate differences in attractiveness between stimuli, (ii) a glaring case, where one stimulus is much more attractivethan the others, and (iii) a heteroscedasticity case, where stimuli differ in attractiveness. Finally we asked how anincreasing number of stimuli affect the precision of estimations.    The paired design was the best performing experimental design overall, whereas the heterogeneous one alsoperformed acceptably, sometimes outperforming the paired. On the other hand, the complete design presented anacceptable performance only when a low number of replicates are considered and when testing a small number ofstimuli. The main disadvantages of complete designs were that they provide limited information about the lowerranked stimuli, and ill manage situations of heterogeneity in the variance of the stimuli.    We also note that the complete designs lack flexibility and may be more complex than generally thought. Weconclude that incomplete designs may prove the most reliable option for understanding animal preferences. Suchdesigns offer the important advantage of allowing a sequential addition of new stimuli in the comparisons.Fil: Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaFil: Corley, Juan Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; ArgentinaAcademic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd2011-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/280788Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto; Corley, Juan Carlos; Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?; Academic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd; Animal Behaviour; 82; 1; 7-2011; 161-1690003-3472CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347211001436info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.027info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2026-02-26T10:21:46Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/280788instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982026-02-26 10:21:46.266CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
title Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
spellingShingle Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto
Animal Preference
Thurstone
Specificity
title_short Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
title_full Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
title_fullStr Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
title_full_unstemmed Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
title_sort Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto
Corley, Juan Carlos
author Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto
author_facet Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto
Corley, Juan Carlos
author_role author
author2 Corley, Juan Carlos
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Animal Preference
Thurstone
Specificity
topic Animal Preference
Thurstone
Specificity
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Preference experiments are common in animal behavior research. In most cases, these are approached using completeblock design experiments, after which data are processed with ANOVA/T 2 or similar statistical tests. Using recent developments in statistics, we compared dierent experimental designs for testing animal preferences:a complete block design; and two incomplete block designs: paired (homogeneous), and heterogeneous. We simulatedexperiments and compared the performance of each design under the following scenarios: (i) a simple one withmoderate differences in attractiveness between stimuli, (ii) a glaring case, where one stimulus is much more attractivethan the others, and (iii) a heteroscedasticity case, where stimuli differ in attractiveness. Finally we asked how anincreasing number of stimuli affect the precision of estimations.    The paired design was the best performing experimental design overall, whereas the heterogeneous one alsoperformed acceptably, sometimes outperforming the paired. On the other hand, the complete design presented anacceptable performance only when a low number of replicates are considered and when testing a small number ofstimuli. The main disadvantages of complete designs were that they provide limited information about the lowerranked stimuli, and ill manage situations of heterogeneity in the variance of the stimuli.    We also note that the complete designs lack flexibility and may be more complex than generally thought. Weconclude that incomplete designs may prove the most reliable option for understanding animal preferences. Suchdesigns offer the important advantage of allowing a sequential addition of new stimuli in the comparisons.
Fil: Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; Argentina
Fil: Corley, Juan Carlos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Norte. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria San Carlos de Bariloche; Argentina
description Preference experiments are common in animal behavior research. In most cases, these are approached using completeblock design experiments, after which data are processed with ANOVA/T 2 or similar statistical tests. Using recent developments in statistics, we compared dierent experimental designs for testing animal preferences:a complete block design; and two incomplete block designs: paired (homogeneous), and heterogeneous. We simulatedexperiments and compared the performance of each design under the following scenarios: (i) a simple one withmoderate differences in attractiveness between stimuli, (ii) a glaring case, where one stimulus is much more attractivethan the others, and (iii) a heteroscedasticity case, where stimuli differ in attractiveness. Finally we asked how anincreasing number of stimuli affect the precision of estimations.    The paired design was the best performing experimental design overall, whereas the heterogeneous one alsoperformed acceptably, sometimes outperforming the paired. On the other hand, the complete design presented anacceptable performance only when a low number of replicates are considered and when testing a small number ofstimuli. The main disadvantages of complete designs were that they provide limited information about the lowerranked stimuli, and ill manage situations of heterogeneity in the variance of the stimuli.    We also note that the complete designs lack flexibility and may be more complex than generally thought. Weconclude that incomplete designs may prove the most reliable option for understanding animal preferences. Suchdesigns offer the important advantage of allowing a sequential addition of new stimuli in the comparisons.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-07
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/280788
Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto; Corley, Juan Carlos; Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?; Academic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd; Animal Behaviour; 82; 1; 7-2011; 161-169
0003-3472
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/280788
identifier_str_mv Bruzzone, Octavio Augusto; Corley, Juan Carlos; Which is the best experimental design in animal choice tests?; Academic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd; Animal Behaviour; 82; 1; 7-2011; 161-169
0003-3472
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347211001436
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.03.027
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Academic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Academic Press Ltd - Elsevier Science Ltd
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1858305624190746624
score 13.176822

Publicaciones similares