Automated Home-Cage Testing as a Tool to Improve Reproducibility of Behavioral Research?

Richter, S. Helene

doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00383

Cited by 21 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These measures however unfortunately do not preclude the possibility that handling differences or other experimenter-related factors affected the outcome of this study as experimenters themselves can never be entirely subjected to standardization [ 86 ]. Another experimenter-induced factor that may affect the scoring of live behavior is observer variability [ 38 , 87 , 88 ]. Both inter- and intra-observer reliability were established at a good to excellent level prior to the start of the study, after a training phase in which both experimenters aligned coding by scoring video data from previously collected mHB-data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors illustrate how complete control over experimenter-induced variability is difficult to accomplish. In fact, the experimenter has been termed one of the most uncontrollable background factors in experimental research, affecting experimental outcomes and reproducibility between studies in a similar manner as inter-individual variability [ 38 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Next, we designed a pharmacological experiment in which we systematically incorporated this factor in the composition of our experimental groups. We used a complete randomized block design with four replicates (‘mini-experiments or blocks’, [ 36 , 37 ]) and systematically incorporated experimenter, besides inbred strain, as a heterogenization factor to improve the generalizability of our results, as suggested by Richter [ 38 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inter-individual variability in quantitative traits is believed to potentially inflate the quality of results in animal experimentation. Yet, to our knowledge this effect has not been empirically tested. Here we test whether inter-individual variability in emotional response within mouse inbred strains affects the outcome of a pharmacological experiment. Three mouse inbred strains (BALB/c, C57BL/6 and 129S2) were behaviorally characterized through repeated exposure to a mild aversive stimulus (modified Hole Board, five consecutive trials). A multivariate clustering procedure yielded two multidimensional response types which were displayed by individuals of all three strains. We show that systematic incorporation of these individual response types in the design of a pharmacological experiment produces different results from an experimental pool in which this variation was not accounted for. To our knowledge, this is the first study that empirically confirms that inter-individual variability affects the interpretation of behavioral phenotypes and may obscure experimental results in a pharmacological experiment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing uncontrolled variation instead (for example, by using outbred strains) might bear the risk of inflating sample sizes, as it is hard to control for this variation in the experimental design or the statistical analysis 10 . We therefore strongly recommend the use of heterogenization factors that can be systematically varied and act as kind of 'umbrella factors' covering plenty of known and unknown background variables at the same time (for example, the experimenter 11,12 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

It is time for an empirically informed paradigm shift in animal research

Richter

Kortzfleisch

2020

Nat Rev Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For enhanced validity, I believe we need to put even more emphasis on recording and mining the behavior of animals in their home-cage environment (83). Nevertheless, it is not yet possible to fully replace conventional testing, yet at the same time the role of experimenter in the process of data collection needs to be critically evaluated (84).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of behavioral phenotypes in mouse models - a short history with critical and practical notes

Võikar

2020

J. Rep. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Progress in pre-clinical research is built on reproducible findings, yet reproducibility has different dimensions and even meanings. Indeed, the terms reproducibility, repeatability, and replicability are often used interchangeably, although each has a distinct definition. Moreover, reproducibility can be discussed at the level of methods, analysis, results, or conclusions (1, 2). Despite these differences in definitions and dimensions, the main aim for an individual research group is the ability to develop new studies and hypotheses based on firm and reliable findings from previous experiments. In practice this wish is often difficult to accomplish. In this review, issues affecting reproducibility in the field of mouse behavioral phenotyping are discussed. Crisis in reproducibility. Over the last ten years, the "reproducibility crisis" has often appeared in the headlines of scientific journals (3-6). Several factors have been identified as the major causes for irreproducibility-including p-hacking, cherry-picking, low statistical power, publication bias, and hypothesizing after results are known (7). However, these issues mostly occur after the animal experiments are done. There are many more items to consider during the planning and running of an experiment-good experimental design includes considerations regarding randomization, blinding, details of housing, husbandry and animal care, the definition of the experimental unit, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the choice of animal subjects (the source, health status, strain, sex and age of the animal), among others. (8-10). Guidelines and recommendations (e.g. ARRIVE, PREPARE) are available for addressing these factors (11, 12). However, despite the fact that the ARRIVE guidelines have existed for ten years and are

show abstract

Automated Home-Cage Testing as a Tool to Improve Reproducibility of Behavioral Research?

Cited by 21 publications

References 49 publications

Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments

Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments

It is time for an empirically informed paradigm shift in animal research

Reproducibility of behavioral phenotypes in mouse models - a short history with critical and practical notes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About