FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sci Rep / A cross-species judgement bias task: integrating active tria...
Scientific reports2018; 8(1); 5104; doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3

A cross-species judgement bias task: integrating active trial initiation into a spatial Go/No-go task.

Abstract: Judgement bias tasks are promising tools to assess emotional valence in animals, however current designs are often time-consuming and lack aspects of validity. This study aimed to establish an improved design that addresses these issues and can be used across species. Horses, rats, and mice were trained on a spatial Go/No-go task where animals could initiate each trial. The location of an open goal-box, at either end of a row of five goal-boxes, signalled either reward (positive trial) or non-reward (negative trial). Animals first learned to approach the goal-box in positive trials (Go) and to re-initiate/not approach in negative trials (No-go). Animals were then tested for responses to ambiguous trials where goal-boxes at intermediate locations were opened. The Go:No-go response ratio was used as a measure of judgement bias. Most animals quickly learned the Go/No-go discrimination and performed trials at a high rate compared to previous studies. Subjects of all species reliably discriminated between reference cues and ambiguous cues, demonstrating a monotonic graded response across the different cue locations, with no evidence of learning about the outcome of ambiguous trials. This novel test protocol is an important step towards a practical task for comparative studies on judgement biases in animals.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2018-03-23 PubMed ID: 29572529PubMed Central: PMC5865189DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article discusses the development and evaluation of an improved design for judgement bias task which aids in determining the emotional state of animals like horses, rats and mice using a spatial Go/No-go task.

Study Purpose and Methodology

  • The study aims to improve upon existing designs of judgement bias tasks, which are used for assessing emotional valence in animals. Existing methods are often time-consuming and face validity issues.
  • Animals, including horses, rats, and mice, were trained on a new version of a spatial Go/No-go task. In this task, the animals had the option to initiate each trial themselves.
  • The task uses a series of five goal-boxes, with an open goal-box at either end signaling either a reward (for a positive trial) or the absence of a reward (for a negative trial).

Training and Testing Process

  • Animals were initially trained to distinguish between positive and negative cues. In positive scenarios (Go), they learned to approach the goal-box, and in negative ones (No-go), they learned to re-initiate or not approach the goal.
  • After being trained, they were tested for their reactions to ambiguous trials. Ambiguous scenarios involved intermediate goal-boxes being opened.
  • The researchers determined judgement bias by examining the Go:No-go response ratio.

Study Findings

  • The animals were found to learn the Go/No-go discrimination quickly and executed trials at a high rate compared to previous designs, providing evidence to the new design’s efficiency.
  • Animals from all species consistently distinguished between reference cues (the extreme positions) and the ambiguous ones, presenting a monotonic graded response across the varying cue locations. This means they reacted differently based on how close the goal-box was to the positive or negative extremes.
  • The study found no evidence of animals learning the outcome of ambiguous trials, further validating the accuracy of the task in assessing emotions without being tampered by learning effects.

Conclusion

  • This research proves that the modified version of the spatial Go/No-go task is an improved method for carrying out comparative studies on judgement biases in different species of animals.
  • The task’s design addresses the limitations faced in prior designs, such as prolonged time, lack of validity and lack of active trial initiations by the animals themselves, making this a vital addition to animal psychology studies.

Cite This Article

APA
Hintze S, Melotti L, Colosio S, Bailoo JD, Boada-Saña M, Würbel H, Murphy E. (2018). A cross-species judgement bias task: integrating active trial initiation into a spatial Go/No-go task. Sci Rep, 8(1), 5104. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23459-3

Publication

Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
NlmUniqueID: 101563288
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 8
Issue: 1
Pages: 5104
PII: 5104

Researcher Affiliations

Hintze, Sara
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland. sara.hintze@boku.ac.at.
  • Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Strasse 33, 1180, Vienna, Austria. sara.hintze@boku.ac.at.
Melotti, Luca
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
  • RG Behavioural Biology & Animal Welfare, Division of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Badestrasse 13, 48149, Münster, Germany.
Colosio, Simona
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Bailoo, Jeremy D
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Boada-Saña, Maria
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Würbel, Hanno
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Murphy, Eimear
  • Division of Animal Welfare, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.

MeSH Terms

  • Animal Welfare
  • Animals
  • Behavior, Animal
  • Discrimination Learning
  • Emotions
  • Female
  • Horses
  • Learning
  • Male
  • Mice
  • Mice, Inbred C57BL
  • Rats
  • Reward
  • Species Specificity

Grant Funding

  • 322576 / European Research Council

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

This article includes 54 references
  1. Yeates JW, Main DC. Assessment of positive welfare: a review.. Vet J 2008 Mar;175(3):293-300.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009pubmed: 17613265google scholar: lookup
  2. Panksepp J. The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: do animals have affective lives?. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2011 Oct;35(9):1791-804.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.08.003pubmed: 21872619google scholar: lookup
  3. Wemelsfelder F. The scientific validity of subjective concepts in models of animal welfare.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997;53:75–88.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01152-5google scholar: lookup
  4. Paul ES, Harding EJ, Mendl M. Measuring emotional processes in animals: the utility of a cognitive approach.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2005 May;29(3):469-91.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002pubmed: 15820551google scholar: lookup
  5. de Waal FBM. What is an animal emotion?. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2011 Apr;1224:191-206.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05912.xpubmed: 21486301google scholar: lookup
  6. Marchant-Forde JN. The Science of Animal Behavior and Welfare: Challenges, Opportunities, and Global Perspective.. Front Vet Sci 2015;2:16.
    pmc: PMC4672293pubmed: 26664945doi: 10.3389/fvets.2015.00016google scholar: lookup
  7. Harding EJ, Paul ES, Mendl M. Animal behaviour: cognitive bias and affective state.. Nature 2004 Jan 22;427(6972):312.
    doi: 10.1038/427312apubmed: 14737158google scholar: lookup
  8. Mendl M, Burman OHP, Parker RMA, Paul ES. Cognitive bias as an indicator of animal emotion and welfare: Emerging evidence and underlying mechanisms.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;118:161–181.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.02.023google scholar: lookup
  9. Roelofs S, Boleij H, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. Making Decisions under Ambiguity: Judgment Bias Tasks for Assessing Emotional State in Animals.. Front Behav Neurosci 2016;10:119.
    pmc: PMC4899464pubmed: 27375454doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119google scholar: lookup
  10. Baciadonna L, McElligott AG. The use of judgement bias to assess welfare in farm livestock.. Anim. Welf. 2015;24:81–91.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.1.081google scholar: lookup
  11. Bethell EJ. A "How-To" Guide for Designing Judgment Bias Studies to Assess Captive Animal Welfare.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2015;18 Suppl 1:S18-42.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2015.1075833pubmed: 26440495google scholar: lookup
  12. Jones S, Paul ES, Dayan P, Robinson ESJ, Mendl M. Pavlovian influences on learning differ between rats and mice in a counter-balanced Go/NoGo judgement bias task.. Behav Brain Res 2017 Jul 28;331:214-224.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.05.044pmc: PMC5480777pubmed: 28549647google scholar: lookup
  13. Düpjan S, Ramp C, Kanitz E, Tuchscherer A, Puppe B. A design for studies on cognitive bias in the domestic pig.. J. Vet. Behav. 2013;8:485–489.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2013.05.007google scholar: lookup
  14. Guldimann K, Vögeli S, Wolf M, Wechsler B, Gygax L. Frontal brain deactivation during a non-verbal cognitive judgement bias test in sheep.. Brain Cogn 2015 Feb;93:35-41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2014.11.004pubmed: 25506630google scholar: lookup
  15. Hintze S, Roth E, Bachmann I, Würbel H. Toward a Choice-Based Judgment Bias Task for Horses.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2017 Apr-Jun;20(2):123-136.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2016.1276834pubmed: 28139164google scholar: lookup
  16. Novak J. Effects of stereotypic behaviour and chronic mild stress on judgement bias in laboratory mice.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;174:162–172.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.10.004google scholar: lookup
  17. Gygax L. The A to Z of statistics for testing cognitive judgement bias.. Anim. Behav. 2014;95:59–69.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.06.013google scholar: lookup
  18. Burman OH, Parker RM, Paul ES, Mendl MT. Anxiety-induced cognitive bias in non-human animals.. Physiol Behav 2009 Sep 7;98(3):345-50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.06.012pubmed: 19560479google scholar: lookup
  19. Bateson M, Nettle D. Development of a cognitive bias methodology for measuring low mood in chimpanzees.. PeerJ 2015;3:e998.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.998pmc: PMC4465942pubmed: 26082875google scholar: lookup
  20. Bethell EJ, Koyama NF. Happy hamsters? Enrichment induces positive judgement bias for mildly (but not truly) ambiguous cues to reward and punishment in Mesocricetus auratus.. R Soc Open Sci 2015 Jul;2(7):140399.
    doi: 10.1098/rsos.140399pmc: PMC4632568pubmed: 26587255google scholar: lookup
  21. Richter SH, Schick A, Hoyer C, Lankisch K, Gass P, Vollmayr B. A glass full of optimism: enrichment effects on cognitive bias in a rat model of depression.. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2012 Sep;12(3):527-42.
    doi: 10.3758/s13415-012-0101-2pubmed: 22644760google scholar: lookup
  22. Murphy E, Nordquist RE, van der Staay FJ. Responses of conventional pigs and Göttingen miniature pigs in an active choice judgement bias task.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;148:64–76.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.011google scholar: lookup
  23. Washburn DA, Hopkins WD, Rumbaugh DM. Perceived control in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta): enhanced video-task performance.. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 1991 Apr;17(2):123-9.
    doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.17.2.123pubmed: 2045768google scholar: lookup
  24. Ruet A. Appréciation de la personnalité du cheval FM par les tests standardisés: ètude prèliminaire au projet de phénotypage visant à identifier des gènes du tempérament.. In 11ème réunion annuelle du Réseau de recherche équine en Suisse (eds. Rieder, S., Bachmann, I., Burger, D. & von Niederhäusern, R.) 50–51 (Agroscope Science, 2016).
  25. Doyle RE, Fisher AD, Hinch GN, Boissy A, Lee C. Release from restraint generates a positive judgement bias in sheep.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010;122:28–34.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.003google scholar: lookup
  26. Kloke V, Schreiber RS, Bodden C, Möllers J, Ruhmann H, Kaiser S, Lesch KP, Sachser N, Lewejohann L. Hope for the best or prepare for the worst? Towards a spatial cognitive bias test for mice.. PLoS One 2014;9(8):e105431.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105431pmc: PMC4138164pubmed: 25137069google scholar: lookup
  27. Neave HW, Daros RR, Costa JH, von Keyserlingk MA, Weary DM. Pain and pessimism: dairy calves exhibit negative judgement bias following hot-iron disbudding.. PLoS One 2013;8(12):e80556.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080556pmc: PMC3851165pubmed: 24324609google scholar: lookup
  28. Papini MR, Dudley RT. Consequences of surprising reward omissions.. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1997;1:175–197.
    doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.175google scholar: lookup
  29. Papini MR. Comparative psychology of surprising nonreward.. Brain Behav Evol 2003;62(2):83-95.
    doi: 10.1159/000072439pubmed: 12937347google scholar: lookup
  30. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. 2014.
  31. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.. Biom J 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63.
    doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425pubmed: 18481363google scholar: lookup
  32. Bretz F, Hothorn T, Westfall P. Multiple comparisons using R.. (Taylor & Francis, 2011).
    doi: 10.2307/1266041google scholar: lookup
  33. Martin TI, Zentall TR, Lawrence L. Simple discrimination reversals in the domestic horse (Equus caballus): Effect of discriminative stimulus modality on learning to learn.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2006;101:328–338.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.02.011google scholar: lookup
  34. Sarter M. Animal cognition: defining the issues.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2004 Nov;28(7):645-50.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.005pubmed: 15555674google scholar: lookup
  35. Briefer Freymond S. Behaviour of horses in a judgment bias test associated with positive or negative reinforcement.. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2014;158:34–45.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.06.006google scholar: lookup
  36. Löckener S, Reese S, Erhard M, Wöhr A-C. Pasturing in herds after housing in horseboxes induces a positive cognitive bias in horses.. J. Vet. Behav. 2016;11:50–55.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2015.11.005google scholar: lookup
  37. Henry S, Fureix C, Rowberry R, Bateson M, Hausberger M. Do horses with poor welfare show 'pessimistic' cognitive biases?. Naturwissenschaften 2017 Feb;104(1-2):8.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-016-1429-1pubmed: 28083632google scholar: lookup
  38. Burman OHP, Parker R, Paul ES, Mendl M. A spatial judgement task to determine background emotional state in laboratory rats, Rattus norvegicus.. Anim. Behav. 2008;76:801–809.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.02.014google scholar: lookup
  39. Rygula R, Papciak J, Popik P. Trait pessimism predicts vulnerability to stress-induced anhedonia in rats.. Neuropsychopharmacology 2013 Oct;38(11):2188-96.
    doi: 10.1038/npp.2013.116pmc: PMC3773668pubmed: 23660704google scholar: lookup
  40. Boleij H, van't Klooster J, Lavrijsen M, Kirchhoff S, Arndt SS, Ohl F. A test to identify judgement bias in mice.. Behav Brain Res 2012 Jul 15;233(1):45-54.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.04.039pubmed: 22562041google scholar: lookup
  41. Anderson MH, Munafò MR, Robinson ES. Investigating the psychopharmacology of cognitive affective bias in rats using an affective tone discrimination task.. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2013 Apr;226(3):601-13.
    doi: 10.1007/s00213-012-2932-5pubmed: 23239131google scholar: lookup
  42. Doyle RE, Vidal S, Hinch GN, Fisher AD, Boissy A, Lee C. The effect of repeated testing on judgement biases in sheep.. Behav Processes 2010 Mar;83(3):349-52.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.01.019pubmed: 20117188google scholar: lookup
  43. Deakin A, Browne WJ, Hodge JJ, Paul ES, Mendl M. A Screen-Peck Task for Investigating Cognitive Bias in Laying Hens.. PLoS One 2016;11(7):e0158222.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158222pmc: PMC4943636pubmed: 27410229google scholar: lookup
  44. Enkel T, Gholizadeh D, von Bohlen Und Halbach O, Sanchis-Segura C, Hurlemann R, Spanagel R, Gass P, Vollmayr B. Ambiguous-cue interpretation is biased under stress- and depression-like states in rats.. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010 Mar;35(4):1008-15.
    doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.204pmc: PMC3055368pubmed: 20043002google scholar: lookup
  45. McCall CA. A review of learning behavior in horses and its application in horse training.. J. Anim. Sci. 1990;68:75–81.
  46. Verbeek E, Ferguson D, Lee C. Are hungry sheep more pessimistic? The effects of food restriction on cognitive bias and the involvement of ghrelin in its regulation.. Physiol Behav 2014 Jan 17;123:67-75.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2013.09.017pubmed: 24096007google scholar: lookup
  47. Martin B, Ji S, Maudsley S, Mattson MP. "Control" laboratory rodents are metabolically morbid: why it matters.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Apr 6;107(14):6127-33.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912955107pmc: PMC2852022pubmed: 20194732google scholar: lookup
  48. Overmier, J. B., Patterson, J. & Wielkiewicz, R. M. In Coping and Health (eds Levine, S. & Ursin, H.) 1–38 (Plenum Press, 1980).
  49. Kavanau JL. Compulsory regime and control of environment in animal behaviour. I. Wheel-running.. Behaviour. 1963;20:251–281.
    doi: 10.1163/156853963X00031google scholar: lookup
  50. Sambrook TD, Buchanan-Smith HM. Control and complexity in novel object enrichment.. Anim. Welf. 1997;6:207–216.
  51. Koolhaas JM, Bartolomucci A, Buwalda B, de Boer SF, Flügge G, Korte SM, Meerlo P, Murison R, Olivier B, Palanza P, Richter-Levin G, Sgoifo A, Steimer T, Stiedl O, van Dijk G, Wöhr M, Fuchs E. Stress revisited: a critical evaluation of the stress concept.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2011 Apr;35(5):1291-301.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.02.003pubmed: 21316391google scholar: lookup
  52. Maier SF, Seligman MEP. Learned helplessness: theory and evidence.. Journel Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1976;105:3–46.
    doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.105.1.3google scholar: lookup
  53. Perlmuter LC, Monty RA. The importance of perceived control: fact or fantasy?. Am Sci 1977 Nov-Dec;65(6):759-65.
    pubmed: 596719
  54. Skinner EA, Wellborn JG, Connell JP. What it takes to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in school.. J. Educ. Psychol. 1990;82:22–32.
    doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.22google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 22 times.
  1. Iki S, Adachi I. Fearful snake pictures make monkeys pessimistic.. iScience 2023 Sep 15;26(9):107622.
    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.107622pubmed: 37664603google scholar: lookup
  2. Krebs BL, Chudeau KR, Eschmann CL, Tu CW, Pacheco E, Watters JV. Space, time, and context drive anticipatory behavior: Considerations for understanding the behavior of animals in human care.. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:972217.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.972217pubmed: 36148468google scholar: lookup
  3. Bračić M, Bohn L, Siewert V, von Kortzfleisch VT, Schielzeth H, Kaiser S, Sachser N, Richter SH. Once an optimist, always an optimist? Studying cognitive judgment bias in mice.. Behav Ecol 2022 Jul-Aug;33(4):775-788.
    doi: 10.1093/beheco/arac040pubmed: 35812364google scholar: lookup
  4. Nematipour B, Bračić M, Krohs U. Cognitive bias in animal behavior science: a philosophical perspective.. Anim Cogn 2022 Aug;25(4):975-990.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-022-01647-zpubmed: 35781584google scholar: lookup
  5. Poppelier T, Bonsberger J, Berkhout BW, Pollmanns R, Schluessel V. Acoustic discrimination in the grey bamboo shark Chiloscyllium griseum.. Sci Rep 2022 Apr 20;12(1):6520.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10257-1pubmed: 35444192google scholar: lookup
  6. Hintze S, Schanz L. Using the Judgment Bias Task to Identify Behavioral Indicators of Affective State: Do Eye Wrinkles in Horses Reflect Mood?. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:676888.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.676888pubmed: 34307525google scholar: lookup
  7. Crump A, Jenkins K, Bethell EJ, Ferris CP, Kabboush H, Weller J, Arnott G. Optimism and pasture access in dairy cows.. Sci Rep 2021 Mar 1;11(1):4882.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84371-xpubmed: 33649476google scholar: lookup
  8. Burani C, Barnard S, Wells D, Pelosi A, Valsecchi P. Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): Methodological and statistical caveats.. PLoS One 2020;15(10):e0241344.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241344pubmed: 33108399google scholar: lookup
  9. Csoltova E, Mehinagic E. Where Do We Stand in the Domestic Dog ( Canis familiaris ) Positive-Emotion Assessment: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions.. Front Psychol 2020;11:2131.
    doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02131pubmed: 33013543google scholar: lookup
  10. Krakenberg V, Siestrup S, Palme R, Kaiser S, Sachser N, Richter SH. Effects of different social experiences on emotional state in mice.. Sci Rep 2020 Sep 17;10(1):15255.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71994-9pubmed: 32943726google scholar: lookup
  11. Kahnau P, Habedank A, Diederich K, Lewejohann L. Behavioral Methods for Severity Assessment.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jul 3;10(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071136pubmed: 32635341google scholar: lookup
  12. Trevarthen AC, Kappel S, Roberts C, Finnegan EM, Paul ES, Planas-Sitjà I, Mendl MT, Fureix C. Measuring affect-related cognitive bias: Do mice in opposite affective states react differently to negative and positive stimuli?. PLoS One 2019;14(12):e0226438.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226438pubmed: 31887167google scholar: lookup
  13. Bučková K, Špinka M, Hintze S. Pair housing makes calves more optimistic.. Sci Rep 2019 Dec 27;9(1):20246.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56798-wpubmed: 31882927google scholar: lookup
  14. Krakenberg V, von Kortzfleisch VT, Kaiser S, Sachser N, Richter SH. Differential Effects of Serotonin Transporter Genotype on Anxiety-Like Behavior and Cognitive Judgment Bias in Mice.. Front Behav Neurosci 2019;13:263.
    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00263pubmed: 31849623google scholar: lookup
  15. Neville V, Nakagawa S, Zidar J, Paul ES, Lagisz M, Bateson M, Løvlie H, Mendl M. Pharmacological manipulations of judgement bias: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020 Jan;108:269-286.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.11.008pubmed: 31747552google scholar: lookup
  16. Laubu C, Louâpre P, Dechaume-Moncharmont FX. Pair-bonding influences affective state in a monogamous fish species.. Proc Biol Sci 2019 Jun 12;286(1904):20190760.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.0760pubmed: 31185864google scholar: lookup
  17. Raoult CMC, Gygax L. Mood induction alters attention toward negative-positive stimulus pairs in sheep.. Sci Rep 2019 May 23;9(1):7759.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44330-zpubmed: 31123314google scholar: lookup
  18. Roelofs S, Alferink FAC, Ipema AF, van de Pas T, van der Staay FJ, Nordquist RE. Discrimination learning and judgment bias in low birth weight pigs.. Anim Cogn 2019 Sep;22(5):657-671.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-019-01262-5pubmed: 31049725google scholar: lookup
  19. Lecorps B, Ludwig BR, von Keyserlingk MAG, Weary DM. Pain-Induced Pessimism and Anhedonia: Evidence From a Novel Probability-Based Judgment Bias Test.. Front Behav Neurosci 2019;13:54.
    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00054pubmed: 30949035google scholar: lookup
  20. Bailoo JD, Murphy E, Boada-Saña M, Varholick JA, Hintze S, Baussière C, Hahn KC, Göpfert C, Palme R, Voelkl B, Würbel H. Effects of Cage Enrichment on Behavior, Welfare and Outcome Variability in Female Mice.. Front Behav Neurosci 2018;12:232.
    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00232pubmed: 30416435google scholar: lookup
  21. Jones S, Neville V, Higgs L, Paul ES, Dayan P, Robinson ESJ, Mendl M. Assessing animal affect: an automated and self-initiated judgement bias task based on natural investigative behaviour.. Sci Rep 2018 Aug 17;8(1):12400.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30571-xpubmed: 30120315google scholar: lookup
  22. Clegg ILK. Cognitive Bias in Zoo Animals: An Optimistic Outlook for Welfare Assessment.. Animals (Basel) 2018 Jun 27;8(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8070104pubmed: 29954151google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.