FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / Limitations of Spatial Judgment Bias Test Application in Hor...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2022; 12(21); 3014; doi: 10.3390/ani12213014

Limitations of Spatial Judgment Bias Test Application in Horses (Equus ferus caballus).

Abstract: Affective states are of increasing interest in the assessment of animal welfare. This research aimed to evaluate the possible limitations in the application of a spatial judgment bias test (JBT) in horses, considering the influence of stress level, personality traits, and the possible bias due to the test structure itself. The distinction between two positions, one rewarded (Positive) and the other not (Negative), was learned by 10 horses and 4 ponies,. Then, the latency to reach three unrewarded ambiguous positions (Near Positive, Middle, Near Negative) was measured. Furthermore, the validated Equine Behavior Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) was employed to assess personality traits. Fecal and hair cortisol levels were measured through radioimmunoassay (RIA), and the frequency of behavioral stress indicators was recorded. Results showed that horses that had the rewarded position (Positive) on the right approached Near Negative and Middle faster than those that had Positive on the left. Certain personality traits influenced the latency to reach Middle and Near Positive, but chronic stress did not seem to affect horses' judgment bias. This preliminary study highlighted several limitations in the employment of spatial JBT for the assessment of affective state in horses and that personality traits can partially influence the cognitive process. Further research is needed to refine the use of this test in horses, considering the peculiarities both of species and of individuals.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2022-11-03 PubMed ID: 36359138PubMed Central: PMC9654000DOI: 10.3390/ani12213014Google 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

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 tries to assess the limitations of the spatial judgment bias test in horses. The test aims to evaluate horses’ affective states but the research shows it may be influenced by stress levels, personality traits, and test structure.

Objective

The primary objective of this research was to explore the potential limitations in applying a spatial judgment bias test (JBT) to horses. The researchers aimed to examine how factors such as stress level, personality traits, and the fundamental structure of the test itself could impact its application.

Methodology

  • A total of 14 equines (10 horses and 4 ponies) were trained to distinguish between two positions — one rewarded (Positive) and one not rewarded (Negative).
  • After this training, the researchers measured the latency (delay) for the equines to reach three unrewarded or ambiguous positions labelled as Near Positive, Middle, and Near Negative.
  • The researchers also utilised the Equine Behavior Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) to assess the personality traits of the equines.
  • The equines’ stress levels were inferred by measuring fecal and hair cortisol (a hormone associated with stress response) levels using Radioimmunoassay (RIA), and by recording the frequency of behavioural stress indicators.

Results

  • Results from the tests indicated that equines who had the rewarded (Positive) position on their right side approached the Near Negative and Middle positions faster than those who had the Positive position on the left.
  • Personality traits appeared to have some influence over the latency to reach the Middle and Near Positive positions, although chronic stress levels did not seem to affect the equines’ judgment bias.

Implications and Further Research

The preliminary study revealed several limitations in the use of spatial JBT for assessing affective states in equines. The researchers found that personality traits could partially influence the cognitive process. Areas identified for further investigation included the test structure itself and influences of stress levels on equines’ performance. The authors of the study recommended more research to refine the use of this test in horses, taking into account both the specific characteristics of the species and individual differences among horses.

Cite This Article

APA
Marliani G, Vannucchi I, Kiumurgis I, Accorsi PA. (2022). Limitations of Spatial Judgment Bias Test Application in Horses (Equus ferus caballus). Animals (Basel), 12(21), 3014. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12213014

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 12
Issue: 21
PII: 3014

Researcher Affiliations

Marliani, Giovanna
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra, 50, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.
Vannucchi, Irene
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra, 50, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.
Kiumurgis, Irini
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra, 50, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.
Accorsi, Pier Attilio
  • Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Via Tolara di Sopra, 50, 40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Italy.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 61 references
  1. Boissy A, Manteuffel G, Jensen MB, Moe RO, Spruijt B, Keeling LJ, Winckler C, Forkman B, Dimitrov I, Langbein J, Bakken M, Veissier I, Aubert A. Assessment of positive emotions in animals to improve their welfare.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):375-97.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003pubmed: 17428510google scholar: lookup
  2. European Union Treaty of Amsterdam, Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals (P110) [(accessed on 5 March 2022)]. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:11997D/PRO/10&from=EN.
  3. Mellor DJ, Beausoleil NJ, Littlewood KE, McLean AN, McGreevy PD, Jones B, Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 14;10(10).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10101870pmc: PMC7602120pubmed: 33066335google scholar: lookup
  4. Mendl M, Burman OH, Paul ES. An integrative and functional framework for the study of animal emotion and mood.. Proc Biol Sci 2010 Oct 7;277(1696):2895-904.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303pmc: PMC2982018pubmed: 20685706google scholar: lookup
  5. 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
  6. Ennaceur A. Tests of unconditioned anxiety - pitfalls and disappointments.. Physiol Behav 2014 Aug;135:55-71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.05.032pubmed: 24910138google scholar: lookup
  7. 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
  8. Mineka S, Watson D, Clark LA. Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders.. Annu Rev Psychol 1998;49:377-412.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.377pubmed: 9496627google scholar: lookup
  9. Haselton MG, Nettle D. The paranoid optimist: an integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases.. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2006;10(1):47-66.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_3pubmed: 16430328google scholar: lookup
  10. Lagisz M, Zidar J, Nakagawa S, Neville V, Sorato E, Paul ES, Bateson M, Mendl M, Løvlie H. Optimism, pessimism and judgement bias in animals: A systematic review and meta-analysis.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2020 Nov;118:3-17.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.012pubmed: 32682742google scholar: lookup
  11. 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
  12. Bateson M. Optimistic and Pessimistic Biases: A Primer for Behavioural Ecologists. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2016;12:115–121.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.09.013google scholar: lookup
  13. Jardim V, Verjat A, Féron C, Châline N, Rödel HG. Is there a bias in spatial maze judgment bias tests? Individual differences in subjects' novelty response can affect test results.. Behav Brain Res 2021 Jun 11;407:113262.
    doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113262pubmed: 33775775google scholar: lookup
  14. Gross JJ, Sutton SK, Ketelaar T. Relations between Affect and Personality: Support for the Affect-Level and Affective-Reactivity Views. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1998;24:279–288.
    doi: 10.1177/0146167298243005google scholar: lookup
  15. Barnard S, Wells DL, Milligan ADS, Arnott G, Hepper PG. Personality traits affecting judgement bias task performance in dogs (Canis familiaris).. Sci Rep 2018 Apr 27;8(1):6660.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-25224-ypmc: PMC5924375pubmed: 29703989google scholar: lookup
  16. Kremer L, Bus JD, Webb LE, Bokkers EAM, Engel B, van der Werf JTN, Schnabel SK, van Reenen CG. Housing and personality effects on judgement and attention biases in dairy cows.. Sci Rep 2021 Nov 26;11(1):22984.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01843-wpmc: PMC8626508pubmed: 34836990google scholar: lookup
  17. Horback KM, Parsons TD. Judgement bias of group housed gestating sows predicted by behavioral traits, but not physical measures of welfare.. PLoS One 2022;17(2):e0264258.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264258pmc: PMC8880926pubmed: 35213574google scholar: lookup
  18. Hausberger M, Stomp M, Sankey C, Brajon S, Lunel C, Henry S. Mutual interactions between cognition and welfare: The horse as an animal model.. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019 Dec;107:540-559.
    doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.08.022pubmed: 31491471google scholar: lookup
  19. Raspa F, Tarantola M, Bergero D, Nery J, Visconti A, Mastrazzo CM, Cavallini D, Valvassori E, Valle E. Time-Budget of Horses Reared for Meat Production: Influence of Stocking Density on Behavioural Activities and Subsequent Welfare.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Aug 1;10(8).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10081334pmc: PMC7460472pubmed: 32752257google scholar: lookup
  20. Raspa F, Tarantola M, Muca E, Bergero D, Soglia D, Cavallini D, Vervuert I, Bordin C, De Palo P, Valle E. Does Feeding Management Make a Difference to Behavioural Activities and Welfare of Horses Reared for Meat Production?. Animals (Basel) 2022 Jul 6;12(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12141740pmc: PMC9311627pubmed: 35883287google scholar: lookup
  21. Raspa F, Vervuert I, Capucchio MT, Colombino E, Bergero D, Forte C, Greppi M, Cavallarin L, Giribaldi M, Antoniazzi S, Cavallini D, Valvassori E, Valle E. A high-starch vs. high-fibre diet: effects on the gut environment of the different intestinal compartments of the horse digestive tract.. BMC Vet Res 2022 May 19;18(1):187.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-022-03289-2pmc: PMC9118577pubmed: 35590319google scholar: lookup
  22. Briefer Freymond S, Briefer EF, Zollinger A, Gindrat-von Allmen Y, Wyss C, Bachmann I. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. McGuire MC, Johnson-Ulrich Z, Robeson A, Zeigler-Hill V, Vonk J. I Say Thee “Neigh”: Rescued Equids Are Optimistic in a Judgment Bias Test. J. Vet. Behav. 2018;25:85–91.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2018.03.009google scholar: lookup
  26. Vinassa M, Cavallini D, Galaverna D, Baragli P, Raspa F, Nery J, Valle E. Palatability Assessment in Horses in Relation to Lateralization and Temperament. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2020;232:105110.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2020.105110google scholar: lookup
  27. De Boyer Des Roches A, Richard-Yris MA, Henry S, Ezzaouïa M, Hausberger M. Laterality and emotions: visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) differs with objects' emotional value.. Physiol Behav 2008 Jun 9;94(3):487-90.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.03.002pubmed: 18455205google scholar: lookup
  28. Austin NP, Rogers LJ. Asymmetry of flight and escape turning responses in horses.. Laterality 2007 Sep;12(5):464-74.
    doi: 10.1080/13576500701495307pubmed: 17712716google scholar: lookup
  29. Palme R. Monitoring Stress Hormone Metabolites as a Useful, Non-Invasive Tool for Welfare Assessment in Farm Animals. Anim. Welf. 2012;21:331–337.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.21.3.331google scholar: lookup
  30. Duran MC, Janz DM, Waldner CL, Campbell JR, Marques FJ. Hair Cortisol Concentration as a Stress Biomarker in Horses: Associations With Body Location and Surgical Castration. J. Equine Vet. Sci. 2017;55:27–33.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jevs.2017.03.220google scholar: lookup
  31. Fenner K, Matlock S, Williams J, Wilson B, McLean A, Serpell J, McGreevy P. Validation of the Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ): A New Survey Instrument for Exploring and Monitoring the Domestic Equine Triad.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Oct 28;10(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10111982pmc: PMC7692587pubmed: 33126670google scholar: lookup
  32. Fenner KH. The Equine Behavior Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ): How the Domestic Equine Triad Can Advance Ethical Equitation. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Sydney; Camperdown, NSW, Australia: 2021.
  33. Mendl M, Brooks J, Basse C, Burman O, Paul E, Blackwell E, Casey R. Dogs showing separation-related behaviour exhibit a 'pessimistic' cognitive bias.. Curr Biol 2010 Oct 12;20(19):R839-40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.030pubmed: 20937467google scholar: lookup
  34. Friard O, Gamba M. BORIS: A Free, Versatile Open-Source Event-Logging Software for Video/Audio Coding and Live Observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016;7:1325–1330.
    doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12584google scholar: lookup
  35. McDonnell S. Practical Field Guide to Horse Behavior: The Equid Ethogram. The Blood-Horse, Inc.; Hong Kong, China: 2003.
  36. Young T, Creighton E, Smith T, Hosie C. A Novel Scale of Behavioural Indicators of Stress for Use with Domestic Horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2012;140:33–43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.05.008google scholar: lookup
  37. Kaiser L, Heleski CR, Siegford J, Smith KA. Stress-related behaviors among horses used in a therapeutic riding program.. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2006 Jan 1;228(1):39-45.
    doi: 10.2460/javma.228.1.39pubmed: 16426164google scholar: lookup
  38. Siniscalchi M, Padalino B, Lusito R, Quaranta A. Is the left forelimb preference indicative of a stressful situation in horses?. Behav Processes 2014 Sep;107:61-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.07.018pubmed: 25108052google scholar: lookup
  39. Scopa C, Palagi E, Sighieri C, Baragli P. Physiological outcomes of calming behaviors support the resilience hypothesis in horses.. Sci Rep 2018 Nov 30;8(1):17501.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35561-7pmc: PMC6269543pubmed: 30504840google scholar: lookup
  40. Proops L, Grounds K, Smith AV, McComb K. Animals Remember Previous Facial Expressions that Specific Humans Have Exhibited.. Curr Biol 2018 May 7;28(9):1428-1432.e4.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.035pubmed: 29706519google scholar: lookup
  41. Möstl E, Messmann S, Bagu E, Robia C, Palme R. Measurement of glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations in faeces of domestic livestock.. Zentralbl Veterinarmed A 1999 Dec;46(10):621-31.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0442.1999.00256.xpubmed: 10638300google scholar: lookup
  42. Fenske M, Schönheiter H. Thin-layer chromatography on silica-coated aluminium sheet as an adjunct to radioimmunoassay of steroids.. J Chromatogr 1991 Jan 18;563(1):178-83.
    doi: 10.1016/0378-4347(91)80292-Kpubmed: 1648105google scholar: lookup
  43. Schatz S, Palme R. Measurement of faecal cortisol metabolites in cats and dogs: a non-invasive method for evaluating adrenocortical function.. Vet Res Commun 2001 May;25(4):271-87.
    doi: 10.1023/A:1010626608498pubmed: 11432429google scholar: lookup
  44. Accorsi PA, Carloni E, Valsecchi P, Viggiani R, Gamberoni M, Tamanini C, Seren E. Cortisol determination in hair and faeces from domestic cats and dogs.. Gen Comp Endocrinol 2008 Jan 15;155(2):398-402.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2007.07.002pubmed: 17727851google scholar: lookup
  45. Tamanini C, Giordano N, Chiesa F, Seren E. Plasma cortisol variations induced in the stallion by mating.. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh) 1983 Mar;102(3):447-50.
    doi: 10.1530/acta.0.1020447pubmed: 6681927google scholar: lookup
  46. Motta M, Esposti AD. A computer program for mathematical treatment of data in radioimmunoassay.. Comput Programs Biomed 1981 Mar-Jun;13(1-2):121-9.
    doi: 10.1016/0010-468X(81)90090-8pubmed: 7285559google scholar: lookup
  47. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2021.
  48. Lucidi P, Bacco G, Sticco M, Mazzoleni G, Benvenuti M, Bernabò N, Trentini R. Assessment of motor laterality in foals and young horses (Equus caballus) through an analysis of derailment at trot.. Physiol Behav 2013 Jan 17;109:8-13.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.11.006pubmed: 23201413google scholar: lookup
  49. Rogers LJ. Lateralization in Vertebrates: Its Early Evolution, General Pattern, and Development. Adv. Study Behav. 2002;31:107–161.
  50. Farmer K, Krueger K, Byrne RW. Visual laterality in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) interacting with humans.. Anim Cogn 2010 Mar;13(2):229-38.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0260-xpubmed: 19618222google scholar: lookup
  51. Müller CA, Riemer S, Rosam CM, Schößwender J, Range F, Huber L. Brief owner absence does not induce negative judgement bias in pet dogs.. Anim Cogn 2012 Sep;15(5):1031-5.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0526-6pmc: PMC4032111pubmed: 22870825google scholar: lookup
  52. Karagiannis CI, Burman OH, Mills DS. Dogs with separation-related problems show a "less pessimistic" cognitive bias during treatment with fluoxetine (Reconcile™) and a behaviour modification plan.. BMC Vet Res 2015 Mar 28;11:80.
    doi: 10.1186/s12917-015-0373-1pmc: PMC4393593pubmed: 25889323google scholar: lookup
  53. Lecorps B, Weary DM, von Keyserlingk MAG. Pessimism and fearfulness in dairy calves.. Sci Rep 2018 Jan 23;8(1):1421.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17214-3pmc: PMC5780456pubmed: 29362460google scholar: lookup
  54. Asher L, Friel M, Griffin K, Collins LM. Mood and personality interact to determine cognitive biases in pigs.. Biol Lett 2016 Nov;12(11).
    doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0402pmc: PMC5134031pubmed: 27852940google scholar: lookup
  55. 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
  56. Burman O, McGowan R, Mendl M, Norling Y, Paul E, Rehn T, Keeling L. Using Judgement Bias to Measure Positive Affective State in Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011;132:160–168.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2011.04.001google scholar: lookup
  57. Palme R. Measuring fecal steroids: guidelines for practical application.. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2005 Jun;1046:75-80.
    doi: 10.1196/annals.1343.007pubmed: 16055844google scholar: lookup
  58. Sheriff MJ, Dantzer B, Delehanty B, Palme R, Boonstra R. Measuring stress in wildlife: techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids.. Oecologia 2011 Aug;166(4):869-87.
    doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-1943-ypubmed: 21344254google scholar: lookup
  59. 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.
    doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119pmc: PMC4899464pubmed: 27375454google scholar: lookup
  60. Heimbürge S, Kanitz E, Otten W. The use of hair cortisol for the assessment of stress in animals.. Gen Comp Endocrinol 2019 Jan 1;270:10-17.
    doi: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2018.09.016pubmed: 30287191google scholar: lookup
  61. Richter SH, Hintze S. From the individual to the population—And back again? Emphasising the role of the individual in animal welfare science. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019;212:1–8.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.012google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 3 times.
  1. Rogers LJ. Knowledge of lateralized brain function can contribute to animal welfare. Front Vet Sci 2023;10:1242906.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2023.1242906pubmed: 37601762google scholar: lookup
  2. Hall C, Kay R. Living the good life? A systematic review of behavioural signs of affective state in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and factors relating to quality of life. Part 2: Horse-human interactions. Anim Welf 2024;33:e41.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.41pubmed: 39469043google scholar: lookup
  3. Hall C, Kay R. Living the good life? A systematic review of behavioural signs of affective state in the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and factors relating to quality of life. Part I: Fulfilment of species-specific needs. Anim Welf 2024;33:e40.
    doi: 10.1017/awf.2024.38pubmed: 39464387google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,359 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.