Video playback versus live stimuli to assess quantity discrimination in angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Video playback is a widely used technique for presentation of visual stimuli in animal behavior research. In the analysis of behavioral responses to social cues, presentation of video recordings of live conspecifics represents a consistently reproducible stimulus. However, video-recordings do not interact with the experimental subject, and thus this stimulus may be inferior in the social context. Here, we evaluated how angelfish (Pterophyllum scalare) respond to a video playback of conspecifics versus a live shoal of conspecifics. Using binary choice tests, subjects were presented different stimuli. Time spent close to one versus the other stimulus was considered an index of preference. We found angelfish to prefer a live shoal of conspecifics to an empty tank, and also the video playback of a shoal of conspecifics to a blank screen, although the level of preference in the latter was lower than in the former. These results indicate that video-playback of live conspecifics may be appropriate in angelfish, thus allowing manipulation of specific cues that angelfish may use in quantity discrimination. However, when we directly contrasted a live and a video recorded shoal, both having the same number of members, experimental fish preferred the live shoal. When the choice consisted of a live shoal of four conspecifics versus a video playback of a shoal of nine conspecifics no clear preference emerged. These results imply that video-playback has disadvantages in quantity discrimination studies with angelfish. Exploring procedural and/or technological parameters will verify the suitability of video-recording-based stimulus presentation for future use in angelfish.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".