Cited by 329Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal testing and alternativesPrimate Behavior and Ecology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stereotypies and Other Abnormal Repetitive Behaviors: Potential Impact on Validity, Reliability, and Replicability of Scientific Outcomes

Open access
Garner, J. P.·2005·ILAR Journal

Abstract

Normal behavior plays a key role in facilitating homeostasis, especially by allowing the animal to control and modify its environment. Captive environments may interfere with these behavioral responses, and the resulting stress may alter many physiological parameters. Abnormal behaviors indicate that an animal is unable to adjust behaviorally to the captive environment and, hence, may be expressing abnormal physiology. Therefore, captive environments may affect the following aspects of an experiment: validity, by introducing abnormal animals into experiments; reliability, by increasing interindividual variation through the introduction of such individuals; and replicability, by altering the number and type of such individuals between laboratories. Thus, far from increasing variability, enrichment may actually improve validity, reliability, and replicability by reducing the number of abnormal animals introduced into experiments. In this article, the specific example of abnormal repetitive behaviors (ARBs) is explored. ARBs in captive animals appear to involve the same mechanisms as ARBs in human psychiatry, which reflect underlying abnormalities of brain function. ARBs are also correlated with a wide range of behavioral changes that affect experimental outcomes. Thus, ARBs in laboratory animals may compromise validity, reliability, and replicability, especially in behavioral experiments; and enrichments that prevent ARB may enhance validity, reliability, and replicability. Although many links in this argument have been tested experimentally, key issues still remain in the interpretation of these data. In particular, it is currently unclear (1) whether or not the differences in brain function seen in animals performing ARB are abnormal, (2) which common behavioral paradigms are affected by ARB, and (3) whether enrichment does indeed improve the quality of behavioral data. Ongoing and future work addressing these issues is outlined.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ilar.46.2.106

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 72 references

1 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Garner, 2004, Comparative medicine, 54, 216
  2. 1975, Current developments in psychopharmacology, 2, 79
  3. 1986, CONSCIOUSNESS AND SELFREGULATION, Vol. 4, 1
  4. 1986, BIOL BEHAV, 11, 130
  5. 1984, 22, 715
  6. 1986, 13, 15
  7. 2003, 14, 35
  8. 1995, Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, and behavioral neurology, 8, 163

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 329

Metadata

Authors
Garner, J. P.
Affiliations
Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
Garner, J. P.
Venue
ILAR Journal
Published
2005-01-01
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
106-117
ISSN
1084-2020 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1994433943
Cited by
329
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 11
FWCI
2.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ILAR Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Purdue University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Primate Behavior and Ecology
Keywords
stereotypy, animal welfare, enrichment, captive animals, validity, reliability statistics, replicability, interindividual variability, stress, behavioral paradigms, animal models of psychiatric disorders
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Husbandry, Animals, Laboratory, Behavior, Animal, Housing, Animal, Humans, Research Design, Stereotyped Behavior, Reproducibility of Results, Animal Experimentation, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review