2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.06.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioural lateralization in a detour test is not repeatable in fishes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

3
27
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
3
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Preferred direction away from the startling stimulus has been seen in other fishes (Domenici, 2010). Lateralisation of barrier detours in consequent T-maze trials, on the other hand, appears to be poorly reproducible (Roche et al, 2020). Neither phenomenon, however, appears to have a relation to lateralization of spontaneous thermally induced turns of N. coriiceps observed in our experiments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Preferred direction away from the startling stimulus has been seen in other fishes (Domenici, 2010). Lateralisation of barrier detours in consequent T-maze trials, on the other hand, appears to be poorly reproducible (Roche et al, 2020). Neither phenomenon, however, appears to have a relation to lateralization of spontaneous thermally induced turns of N. coriiceps observed in our experiments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…We tested each horse only once, raising the question of how repeatable the eye use biases we observed would be within animals across time [ 81 83 ]. We found significant changes in the pattern of eye use across the 5-minutes of observation; notably, the horses used their non-preferred eye to inspect the stimulus more often as the trial progressed.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While many results are indeed robust, it is not uncommon that results fail to replicate in subsequent experiments (e.g. Clark et al, 2020; Jones et al, 2019; Roche et al, 2020; Wang et al, 2018). Publication bias and erroneous analyses, favouring positive results in the a priori hypothesized direction, may further contribute to promote spurious effects in the literature (Baltzley & Nabity, 2018; Jennions & Møller, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%