FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Frontiers in zoology2017; 14; 8; doi: 10.1186/s12983-017-0193-1

Perception of emotional valence in horse whinnies.

Abstract: Non-human animals often produce different types of vocalisations in negative and positive contexts (i.e. different valence), similar to humans, in which crying is associated with negative emotions and laughter is associated with positive ones. However, some types of vocalisations (e.g. contact calls, human speech) can be produced in both negative and positive contexts, and changes in valence are only accompanied by slight structural differences. Although such acoustically graded signals associated with opposite valence have been highlighted in some species, it is not known if conspecifics discriminate them, and if contagion of emotional valence occurs as a result. We tested whether domestic horses perceive, and are affected by, the emotional valence of whinnies produced by both familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics. We measured physiological and behavioural reactions to whinnies recorded during emotionally negative (social separation) and positive (social reunion) situations. Results: We show that horses perceive acoustic cues to both valence and familiarity present in whinnies. They reacted differently (respiration rate, head movements, height of the head and latency to respond) to separation and reunion whinnies when produced by familiar, but not unfamiliar individuals. They were also more emotionally aroused (shorter inter-pulse intervals and higher locomotion) when hearing unfamiliar compared to familiar whinnies. In addition, the acoustic parameters of separation and reunion whinnies affected the physiology and behaviour of conspecifics in a continuous way. However, we did not find clear evidence for contagion of emotional valence. Conclusions: Horses are thus able to perceive changes linked to emotional valence within a given vocalisation type, similar to perception of affective prosody in humans. Whinnies produced in either separation or reunion situations seem to constitute acoustically graded variants with distinct functions, enabling horses to increase their apparent vocal repertoire size.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2017-02-11 PubMed ID: 28203263PubMed Central: PMC5303229DOI: 10.1186/s12983-017-0193-1Google 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.

This study reveals that horses can recognize and respond to the emotional content (positive or negative) in the “whinnies” (vocal sounds) of other horses, familiar and unfamiliar. However, it wasn’t clear if a horse’s emotions could directly influence that of another horse.

Study Objective

  • The research aimed to examine if domestic horses can recognize and react to the emotional connotations in the whinnies produced by both known and unknown horses.
  • The study explored the physiological and behavioral changes in response to whinnies recorded during emotionally charged moments of social separation (negative) and reunion (positive).

Methodology

  • The researchers observed the reactions of horses such as respiration rate, head movements, and response latency to the whinnies produced during periods of separation and reunion.
  • They tested these reactions in relation to whinnies produced by both familiar and unfamiliar horses.

Findings

  • Results showed that horses could interpret acoustic signals related to both emotional valence (positive or negative emotions) and familiarity in the whinnies.
  • They responded differently to the separation and reunion whinnies when they were produced by familiar individuals but not unfamiliar ones.
  • The horses were also more emotionally aroused when they heard whinnies from unfamiliar horses compared to those from familiar horses.
  • The different acoustic properties of separation and reunion whinnies influenced the behavior and physiology of other horses in varying degrees.

Conclusions

  • Horses can perceive emotional changes within the same type of vocalization, akin to human perception of “affective prosody” (changes in tone, rhythm, and loudness to express emotion in speech).
  • Whinnies produced during situations of separation or reunion appear to be acoustically graded variants, allowing horses to augment their apparent vocal repertoire size.
  • Interestingly, the researchers didn’t find clear evidence of emotional contagion, meaning a horse’s emotional state did not clearly affect the emotional state of another horse.

Cite This Article

APA
Briefer EF, Mandel R, Maigrot AL, Briefer Freymond S, Bachmann I, Hillmann E. (2017). Perception of emotional valence in horse whinnies. Front Zool, 14, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-017-0193-1

Publication

Frontiers in zoology
ISSN: 1742-9994
NlmUniqueID: 101231669
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 14
Pages: 8
PII: 8

Researcher Affiliations

Briefer, Elodie F
  • Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
Mandel, Roi
  • Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
  • Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, the Hebrew University, Rehovot, 76100 Israel.
Maigrot, Anne-Laure
  • Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
  • Division of Animal Welfare, Veterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Länggassstrasse 120, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Briefer Freymond, Sabrina
  • Agroscope, Swiss National Stud Farm, Les Longs Prés, 1580 Avenches, Switzerland.
Bachmann, Iris
  • Agroscope, Swiss National Stud Farm, Les Longs Prés, 1580 Avenches, Switzerland.
Hillmann, Edna
  • Institute of Agricultural Sciences, ETH Zürich, Universitätstrasse 2, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.

References

This article includes 73 references
  1. Russell J. A circumplex model of affect.. J Pers Soc Psychol 1980;39:1161–1178.
    doi: 10.1037/h0077714google scholar: lookup
  2. Bradley MM, Codispoti M, Cuthbert BN, Lang PJ. Emotion and motivation I: defensive and appetitive reactions in picture processing.. Emotion 2001 Sep;1(3):276-98.
    doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.276pubmed: 12934687google scholar: lookup
  3. Boissy A, Terlouw C, Le Neindre P. Presence of cues from stressed conspecifics increases reactivity to aversive events in cattle: evidence for the existence of alarm substances in urine.. Physiol Behav 1998 Feb 15;63(4):489-95.
    doi: 10.1016/S0031-9384(97)00466-6pubmed: 9523888google scholar: lookup
  4. Amory JR, Pearce GP. Alarm pheromones in urine modify the behaviour of weaner pigs.. Anim Welf 2000;9:167–75.
  5. Mineka S, Cook M. Mechanisms involved in the observational conditioning of fear.. J Exp Psychol Gen 1993 Mar;122(1):23-38.
    doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.122.1.23pubmed: 8440976google scholar: lookup
  6. Buchanan TW, Bagley SL, Stansfield RB, Preston SD. The empathic, physiological resonance of stress.. Soc Neurosci 2012;7(2):191-201.
    doi: 10.1080/17470919.2011.588723pubmed: 21777106google scholar: lookup
  7. Watson CF, Caldwell CA. Neighbor effects in marmosets: social contagion of agonism and affiliation in captive Callithrix jacchus.. Am J Primatol 2010 Jun;72(6):549-58.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20805pubmed: 20131362google scholar: lookup
  8. Langford DJ, Crager SE, Shehzad Z, Smith SB, Sotocinal SG, Levenstadt JS, Chanda ML, Levitin DJ, Mogil JS. Social modulation of pain as evidence for empathy in mice.. Science 2006 Jun 30;312(5782):1967-70.
    doi: 10.1126/science.1128322pubmed: 16809545google scholar: lookup
  9. Edgar JL, Lowe JC, Paul ES, Nicol CJ. Avian maternal response to chick distress.. Proc Biol Sci 2011 Oct 22;278(1721):3129-34.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2701pmc: PMC3158930pubmed: 21389025google scholar: lookup
  10. de Waal FB. Putting the altruism back into altruism: the evolution of empathy.. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:279-300.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625pubmed: 17550343google scholar: lookup
  11. Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT. Emotional Contagion.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
  12. Edgar JL, Nicol CJ, Clark CCA, Paul ES. Measuring empathic responses in animals.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;138:182–93.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.006google scholar: lookup
  13. Preston SD, de Waal FB. Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases.. Behav Brain Sci 2002 Feb;25(1):1-20; discussion 20-71.
    pubmed: 12625087doi: 10.1017/s0140525x02000018google scholar: lookup
  14. Špinka M. Social dimension of emotions and its implication for animal welfare.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2012;138:170–81.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2012.02.005google scholar: lookup
  15. Marler P. The structure of animal communication sounds.. In: Bullock TH, editor. Recognition of complex acoustic signals. Berlin: Springer; 1977. pp. 17–35.
  16. Rendall D, Owren MJ. Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others.. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Mammalian Vocalization - An Integrative Neuroscience Approach. London: Academic; 2010. pp. 177–85.
  17. Briefer EF. Vocal expression of emotions in mammals: mechanisms of production and evidence.. J Zool 2012;288:1–20.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2012.00920.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  18. Marchant JN, Whittaker X, Broom DM. Vocalisations of the adult female domestic pig during a standard human approach test and their relationships with behavioural and heart rate measures.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2001 Apr 2;72(1):23-39.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(00)00190-8pubmed: 11259824google scholar: lookup
  19. Manser MB. The acoustic structure of suricates' alarm calls varies with predator type and the level of response urgency.. Proc Biol Sci 2001 Nov 22;268(1483):2315-24.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1773pmc: PMC1088882pubmed: 11703871google scholar: lookup
  20. Manser MB. The generation of functionally referential and motivational vocal signals in mammals.. In: Brudzynski SM, editor. Handbook of Mammalian Vocalization - An Integrative Neuroscience Approach. London: Academic; 2010. pp. 477–86.
  21. Soltis J, Blowers TE, Savage A. Measuring positive and negative affect in the voiced sounds of African elephants (Loxodonta africana).. J Acoust Soc Am 2011 Feb;129(2):1059-66.
    doi: 10.1121/1.3531798pubmed: 21361461google scholar: lookup
  22. Clay Z, Archbold J, Zuberbühler K. Functional flexibility in wild bonobo vocal behaviour.. PeerJ 2015;3:e1124.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.1124pmc: PMC4540007pubmed: 26290789google scholar: lookup
  23. Briefer EF, Tettamanti F, McElligott AG. Emotions in goats: mapping physiological, behavioural and vocal profiles.. Anim Behav 2015;99:131–43.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.11.002google scholar: lookup
  24. Briefer EF, Maigrot AL, Mandel R, Freymond SB, Bachmann I, Hillmann E. Segregation of information about emotional arousal and valence in horse whinnies.. Sci Rep 2015 Apr 21;4:9989.
    doi: 10.1038/srep09989pmc: PMC4404681pubmed: 25897781google scholar: lookup
  25. Fichtel C, Hammerschmidt K. Responses of redfronted lemurs to experimentally modified alarm calls: evidence for urgency-based changes in call structure.. Ethology 2002;108:763–78.
    doi: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00816.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  26. Fichtel C, Hammerschmidt K. Responses of squirrel monkeys to their experimentally modified mobbing calls.. J Acoust Soc Am 2003 May;113(5):2927-32.
    doi: 10.1121/1.1548158pubmed: 12765410google scholar: lookup
  27. Manser MB, Bell MB, Fletcher LB. The information that receivers extract from alarm calls in suricates.. Proc Biol Sci 2001 Dec 7;268(1484):2485-91.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1772pmc: PMC1088904pubmed: 11747568google scholar: lookup
  28. Blumstein DT, Recapet C. The sound of arousal: The addition of novel non-linearities increases responsiveness in marmot alarm calls.. Ethology 2009;115:1074–81.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01691.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  29. Weary DM, Lawson GL, Thompson BK. Sows show stronger responses to isolation calls of piglets associated with greater levels of piglet need.. Anim Behav 1996;52:1247–53.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1996.0272google scholar: lookup
  30. King LE, Soltis J, Douglas-Hamilton I, Savage A, Vollrath F. Bee threat elicits alarm call in African elephants.. PLoS One 2010 Apr 26;5(4):e10346.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010346pmc: PMC2859947pubmed: 20436682google scholar: lookup
  31. Schehka S, Zimmermann E. Affect intensity in voice recognized by tree shrews (Tupaia belangeri).. Emotion 2012 Jun;12(3):632-9.
    doi: 10.1037/a0026893pubmed: 22309729google scholar: lookup
  32. Perez EC, Elie JE, Boucaud IC, Crouchet T, Soulage CO, Soula HA, Theunissen FE, Vignal C. Physiological resonance between mates through calls as possible evidence of empathic processes in songbirds.. Horm Behav 2015 Sep;75:130-41.
    doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.09.002pubmed: 26407661google scholar: lookup
  33. Videan EN, Fritz J, Schwandt M, Howell S. Neighbor effect: evidence of affiliative and agonistic social contagion in captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).. Am J Primatol 2005 Jun;66(2):131-44.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20133pubmed: 15940706google scholar: lookup
  34. Seffer D, Schwarting RK, Wöhr M. Pro-social ultrasonic communication in rats: insights from playback studies.. J Neurosci Methods 2014 Aug 30;234:73-81.
    pubmed: 24508146doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.01.023google scholar: lookup
  35. van Dierendonck MC. The importance of social relationships in horses.. PhD thesis. Utrecht: Utrecht University; 2006.
  36. Yeon SC. Acoustic communication in the domestic horse (Equus caballus). J Vet Behav 2012;7:179–85.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.08.004google scholar: lookup
  37. Kiley M. The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function.. Z Tierpsychol 1972 Aug;31(2):171-222.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1972.tb01764.xpubmed: 4674022google scholar: lookup
  38. Lemasson A, Boutin A, Boivin S, Blois-Heulin C, Hausberger M. Horse (Equus caballus) whinnies: a source of social information.. Anim Cogn 2009 Sep;12(5):693-704.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0229-9pubmed: 19449192google scholar: lookup
  39. Lemasson A, Remeuf K, Trabalon M, Cuir F, Hausberger M. Mares prefer the voices of highly fertile stallions.. PLoS One 2015;10(2):e0118468.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118468pmc: PMC4340864pubmed: 25714814google scholar: lookup
  40. Rubenstein DI, Hack MA. Horse signals: The sounds and scents of fury.. Evol Ecol 1992;6:254–60.
    doi: 10.1007/BF02214165google scholar: lookup
  41. Basile M, Boivin S, Boutin A, Blois-Heulin C, Hausberger M, Lemasson A. Socially dependent auditory laterality in domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Anim Cogn 2009 Jul;12(4):611-9.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-009-0220-5pubmed: 19283416google scholar: lookup
  42. Proops L, McComb K, Reby D. Cross-modal individual recognition in domestic horses (Equus caballus).. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009 Jan 20;106(3):947-51.
    pmc: PMC2630083pubmed: 19075246doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809127105google scholar: lookup
  43. Krueger K. Behaviour of horses in the “round pen technique”.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2007;104:162–70.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.021google scholar: lookup
  44. Lansade L, Bouissou M-F, Erhard HW. Reactivity to isolation and association with conspecifics: A temperament trait stable across time and situations.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2008;109:355–73.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.03.003google scholar: lookup
  45. Kastein HB, Kumar VA, Kandula S, Schmidt S. Auditory pre-experience modulates classification of affect intensity: evidence for the evaluation of call salience by a non-human mammal, the bat Megaderma lyra.. Front Zool 2013 Dec 16;10(1):75.
    doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-75pmc: PMC3866277pubmed: 24341839google scholar: lookup
  46. Fischer J. Barbary macaques categorize shrill barks into two call types.. Anim Behav 1998 Apr;55(4):799-807.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0663pubmed: 9632468google scholar: lookup
  47. Fischer J, Metz M, Cheney DL, Seyfarth RM. Baboon responses to graded bark variants.. Anim Behav 2001;61:925–31.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1687google scholar: lookup
  48. McGregor P. Playback and studies of Animal Communication.. New York: Plenum Press; 1992.
  49. Hartmann E, Christensen JW, Keeling LJ. Social interactions of unfamiliar horses during paired encounters: Effect of pre-exposure on aggression level and so risk of injury.. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2009;121:214–21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.10.004google scholar: lookup
  50. Elfenbein HA, Ambady N. On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: a meta-analysis.. Psychol Bull 2002 Mar;128(2):203-35.
    doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.2.203pubmed: 11931516google scholar: lookup
  51. Sauter DA, Eisner F, Ekman P, Scott SK. Cross-cultural recognition of basic emotions through nonverbal emotional vocalizations.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Feb 9;107(6):2408-12.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908239106pmc: PMC2823868pubmed: 20133790google scholar: lookup
  52. Micheletta J, Waller BM, Panggur MR, Neumann C, Duboscq J, Agil M, Engelhardt A. Social bonds affect anti-predator behaviour in a tolerant species of macaque, Macaca nigra.. Proc Biol Sci 2012 Oct 7;279(1744):4042-50.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1470pmc: PMC3427593pubmed: 22859593google scholar: lookup
  53. Rukstalis M, French JA. Vocal buffering of the stress response: exposure to conspecific vocalizations moderates urinary cortisol excretion in isolated marmosets.. Horm Behav 2005 Jan;47(1):1-7.
    doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.09.004pmc: PMC2987614pubmed: 15579259google scholar: lookup
  54. Ben-Ami Bartal I, Rodgers DA, Bernardez Sarria MS, Decety J, Mason P. Pro-social behavior in rats is modulated by social experience.. Elife 2014;3:e01385.
    doi: 10.7554/eLife.01385pmc: PMC3884117pubmed: 24424411google scholar: lookup
  55. Trivers RL. The evolution of reciprocal altruism.. Q Rev Biol 1971;46:35–57.
    doi: 10.1086/406755google scholar: lookup
  56. Westerath HS, Gygax L, Hillmann E. Are special feed and being brushed judged as positive by calves?. Appl Anim Behav Sci 2014;156:12–21.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2014.04.003google scholar: lookup
  57. Wathan J, Burrows AM, Waller BM, McComb K. EquiFACS: The Equine Facial Action Coding System.. PLoS One 2015;10(8):e0131738.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131738pmc: PMC4526551pubmed: 26244573google scholar: lookup
  58. Briefer Freymond S, Briefer EF, Von Niederhäusern R, Bachmann I. Pattern of social interactions after group integration: a possibility to keep stallions in group.. PLoS One 2013;8(1):e54688.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054688pmc: PMC3559779pubmed: 23382940google scholar: lookup
  59. Bradbury JV, Vehrencamp SL. Principles of Animal Communication.. Sunderland: Sinauer; 1998.
  60. Waring GH. Horse behavior.. Norwich: William Andrew Publishing; 2003.
  61. Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat: doing phonetics by computer.. 2009; Available from: http://www.praat.org/.
  62. Johnstone JA, Ford PA, Hughes G, Watson T, Garrett AT. Bioharness(™) multivariable monitoring device: part. I: validity.. J Sports Sci Med 2012;11(3):400-8.
    pmc: PMC3737934pubmed: 24149346
  63. Johnstone JA, Ford PA, Hughes G, Watson T, Garrett AT. Bioharness(™) Multivariable Monitoring Device: Part. II: Reliability.. J Sports Sci Med 2012;11(3):409-17.
    pmc: PMC3737936pubmed: 24149347
  64. von Borell E, Langbein J, Després G, Hansen S, Leterrier C, Marchant J, Marchant-Forde R, Minero M, Mohr E, Prunier A, Valance D, Veissier I. Heart rate variability as a measure of autonomic regulation of cardiac activity for assessing stress and welfare in farm animals -- a review.. Physiol Behav 2007 Oct 22;92(3):293-316.
    doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.007pubmed: 17320122google scholar: lookup
  65. Reefmann N, Wechsler B, Gygax L. Behavioural and physiological assessment of positive and negative emotion in sheep.. Anim Behav 2009;78:651–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.015google scholar: lookup
  66. Lilly L. Pathophysiology of Heart Disease.. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006.
  67. Reby D, McComb K. Anatomical constraints generate honesty: acoustic cues to age and weight in the roars of red deer stags.. Anim Behav 2003;65:519–30.
    doi: 10.1006/anbe.2003.2078google scholar: lookup
  68. Engqvist L. The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies.. Anim Behav 2005;70:967–71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.016google scholar: lookup
  69. Forstmeier W, Schielzeth H. Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner's curse.. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 2011 Jan;65(1):47-55.
    doi: 10.1007/s00265-010-1038-5pmc: PMC3015194pubmed: 21297852google scholar: lookup
  70. Levy R. Using R formulae to test for main effects in the presence of higher-order interactions.. 2014. Available from: arXiv preprint arXiv:1405.2094.
  71. Bates D. Fitting linear mixed models in R.. R News 2005;5:27–30.
  72. Halekoh U, Højsgaard S. A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: The R package pbkrtest.. J Stat Softw 2014;1:9.
  73. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models.. Methods Ecol Evol 2013;4:133–42.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.xgoogle scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 29 times.
  1. Marchand WR. Potential Mechanisms of Action and Outcomes of Equine-Assisted Services for Veterans with a History of Trauma: A Narrative Review of the Literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023 Jul 16;20(14).
    doi: 10.3390/ijerph20146377pubmed: 37510609google scholar: lookup
  2. Osiecka AN, Briefer EF, Kidawa D, Wojczulanis-Jakubas K. Seabird's cry: repertoire and vocal expression of contextual valence in the little auk (Alle alle). Sci Rep 2023 May 27;13(1):8623.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-35857-3pubmed: 37244959google scholar: lookup
  3. Torres Borda L, Auer U, Jenner F. Equine Social Behaviour: Love, War and Tolerance. Animals (Basel) 2023 Apr 26;13(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13091473pubmed: 37174510google scholar: lookup
  4. Clark FE, Dunn JC. From Soundwave to Soundscape: A Guide to Acoustic Research in Captive Animal Environments. Front Vet Sci 2022;9:889117.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2022.889117pubmed: 35782565google scholar: lookup
  5. Pérez-Manrique A, Gomila A. Emotional contagion in nonhuman animals: A review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 2022 Jan;13(1):e1560.
    doi: 10.1002/wcs.1560pubmed: 33951303google scholar: lookup
  6. Fishbein AR, Prior NH, Brown JA, Ball GF, Dooling RJ. Discrimination of natural acoustic variation in vocal signals. Sci Rep 2021 Jan 13;11(1):916.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79641-zpubmed: 33441711google scholar: lookup
  7. Lesimple C. Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art. Animals (Basel) 2020 Feb 13;10(2).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10020294pubmed: 32069888google scholar: lookup
  8. Scopa C, Contalbrigo L, Greco A, Lanatà A, Scilingo EP, Baragli P. Emotional Transfer in Human-Horse Interaction: New Perspectives on Equine Assisted Interventions. Animals (Basel) 2019 Nov 26;9(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121030pubmed: 31779120google scholar: lookup
  9. Trösch M, Cuzol F, Parias C, Calandreau L, Nowak R, Lansade L. Horses Categorize Human Emotions Cross-Modally Based on Facial Expression and Non-Verbal Vocalizations. Animals (Basel) 2019 Oct 24;9(11).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9110862pubmed: 31653088google scholar: lookup
  10. Baciadonna L, Briefer EF, Favaro L, McElligott AG. Goats distinguish between positive and negative emotion-linked vocalisations. Front Zool 2019;16:25.
    doi: 10.1186/s12983-019-0323-zpubmed: 31320917google scholar: lookup
  11. Briefer Freymond S, Bardou D, Beuret S, Bachmann I, Zuberbühler K, Briefer EF. Elevated Sensitivity to Tactile Stimuli in Stereotypic Horses. Front Vet Sci 2019;6:162.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2019.00162pubmed: 31275947google scholar: lookup
  12. Mcloughlin MP, Stewart R, McElligott AG. Automated bioacoustics: methods in ecology and conservation and their potential for animal welfare monitoring. J R Soc Interface 2019 Jun 28;16(155):20190225.
    doi: 10.1098/rsif.2019.0225pubmed: 31213168google scholar: lookup
  13. Friel M, Kunc HP, Griffin K, Asher L, Collins LM. Positive and negative contexts predict duration of pig vocalisations. Sci Rep 2019 Feb 14;9(1):2062.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-38514-wpubmed: 30765788google scholar: lookup
  14. Liévin-Bazin A, Pineaux M, Clerc O, Gahr M, von Bayern AMP, Bovet D. Emotional responses to conspecific distress calls are modulated by affiliation in cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus). PLoS One 2018;13(10):e0205314.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205314pubmed: 30300404google scholar: lookup
  15. Baciadonna L, Duepjan S, Briefer EF, Padilla de la Torre M, Nawroth C. Looking on the Bright Side of Livestock Emotions-the Potential of Their Transmission to Promote Positive Welfare. Front Vet Sci 2018;5:218.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2018.00218pubmed: 30258847google scholar: lookup
  16. Smith AV, Proops L, Grounds K, Wathan J, Scott SK, McComb K. Domestic horses (Equus caballus) discriminate between negative and positive human nonverbal vocalisations. Sci Rep 2018 Aug 29;8(1):13052.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-30777-zpubmed: 30158532google scholar: lookup
  17. Henzen A, Gygax L. Weak General but No Specific Habituation in Anticipating Stimuli of Presumed Negative and Positive Valence by Weaned Piglets. Animals (Basel) 2018 Aug 22;8(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8090149pubmed: 30131458google scholar: lookup
  18. Nakamura K, Takimoto-Inose A, Hasegawa T. Cross-modal perception of human emotion in domestic horses (Equus caballus). Sci Rep 2018 Jun 21;8(1):8660.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-26892-6pubmed: 29930289google scholar: lookup
  19. Maigrot AL, Hillmann E, Briefer EF. Encoding of Emotional Valence in Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) Calls. Animals (Basel) 2018 Jun 5;8(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani8060085pubmed: 29874830google scholar: lookup
  20. Briefer EF. Vocal contagion of emotions in non-human animals. Proc Biol Sci 2018 Feb 28;285(1873).
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.2783pubmed: 29491174google scholar: lookup
  21. Manolăchescu D, Tripon M, Crecan C, Tătaru M, Papuc I. Emotional contagion in human-horse interactions: A pilot study investigating the role of stress and body language in emotional transfer. Open Vet J 2025 Nov;15(11):6050-6058.
    doi: 10.5455/OVJ.2025.v15.i11.60pubmed: 41630745google scholar: lookup
  22. Loftus L, Newman A, Leach M, Asher L. Exploring the induction and measurement of positive affective state in equines through a personality-centred lens. Sci Rep 2025 May 27;15(1):18550.
    doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-98034-8pubmed: 40425817google scholar: lookup
  23. Blumstein DT. Nonlinear phenomena in marmot alarm calls: a mechanism encoding fear?. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2025 Apr 3;380(1923):20240008.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2024.0008pubmed: 40176508google scholar: lookup
  24. 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
  25. Callara AL, Scopa C, Contalbrigo L, Lanatà A, Scilingo EP, Baragli P, Greco A. Unveiling directional physiological coupling in human-horse interactions. iScience 2024 Sep 20;27(9):110857.
    doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110857pubmed: 39310749google scholar: lookup
  26. Briefer EF, Xie B, Engesser S, Sueur C, Freeberg TM, Brask JB. The power of sound: unravelling how acoustic communication shapes group dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2024 Jul 8;379(1905):20230182.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0182pubmed: 38768200google scholar: lookup
  27. Whitham JC, Miller LJ. Utilizing vocalizations to gain insight into the affective states of non-human mammals. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1366933.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1366933pubmed: 38435367google scholar: lookup
  28. Osiecka AN, Briefer EF, Kidawa D, Żurawska F, Wojczulanis-Jakubas K. Calls of the little auk (Alle alle) chicks reflect their behavioural contexts. PLoS One 2024;19(2):e0299033.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299033pubmed: 38394184google scholar: lookup
  29. Gavojdian D, Mincu M, Lazebnik T, Oren A, Nicolae I, Zamansky A. BovineTalk: machine learning for vocalization analysis of dairy cattle under the negative affective state of isolation. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1357109.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1357109pubmed: 38362300google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,970 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.