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.

The manner in which laboratory rodents are housed is driven by economics (minimal use of space and resources), ergonomics (ease of handling and visibility of animals), hygiene, and standardization (reduction of variation). This has resulted in housing conditions that lack sensory and motor stimulation and restrict the expression of species-typical behavior. In mice, such housing conditions have been associated with indicators of impaired welfare, including abnormal repetitive behavior (stereotypies, compulsive behavior), enhanced anxiety and stress reactivity, and thermal stress. However, due to concerns that more complex environmental conditions might increase variation in experimental results, there has been considerable resistance to the implementation of environmental enrichment beyond the provision of nesting material. Here, using 96 C57BL/6 and SWISS female mice, respectively, we systematically varied environmental enrichment across four levels spanning the range of common enrichment strategies: (1) bedding alone; (2) bedding + nesting material; (3) deeper bedding + nesting material + shelter + increased vertical space; and (4) semi-naturalistic conditions, including weekly changes of enrichment items. We studied how these different forms of environmental enrichment affected measures of animal welfare, including home-cage behavior (time–budget and stereotypic behavior), anxiety (open field behavior, elevated plus-maze behavior), growth (food and water intake, body mass), stress physiology (glucocorticoid metabolites in fecal boluses and adrenal mass), brain function (recurrent perseveration in a two-choice guessing task) and emotional valence (judgment bias). Our results highlight the difficulty in making general recommendations across common strains of mice and for selecting enrichment strategies within specific strains. Overall, the greatest benefit was observed in animals housed with the greatest degree of enrichment. Thus, in the super-enriched housing condition, stereotypic behavior, behavioral measures of anxiety, growth and stress physiology varied in a manner consistent with improved animal welfare compared to the other housing conditions with less enrichment. Similar to other studies, we found no evidence, in the measures assessed here, that environmental enrichment increased variation in experimental results.

Until recently, research in animal welfare science has mainly focused on negative experiences like pain and suffering, often neglecting the importance of assessing and promoting positive experiences. In rodents, specific facial expressions have been found to occur in situations thought to induce negatively valenced emotional states (e.g., pain, aggression and fear), but none have yet been identified for positive states. Thus, this study aimed to investigate if facial expressions indicative of positive emotional state are exhibited in rats. Adolescent male Lister Hooded rats (Rattus norvegicus, N = 15) were individually subjected to a Positive and a mildly aversive Contrast Treatment over two consecutive days in order to induce contrasting emotional states and to detect differences in facial expression. The Positive Treatment consisted of playful manual tickling administered by the experimenter, while the Contrast Treatment consisted of exposure to a novel test room with intermittent bursts of white noise. The number of positive ultrasonic vocalisations was greater in the Positive Treatment compared to the Contrast Treatment, indicating the experience of differentially valenced states in the two treatments. The main findings were that Ear Colour became significantly pinker and Ear Angle was wider (ears more relaxed) in the Positive Treatment compared to the Contrast Treatment. All other quantitative and qualitative measures of facial expression, which included Eyeball height to width Ratio, Eyebrow height to width Ratio, Eyebrow Angle, visibility of the Nictitating Membrane, and the established Rat Grimace Scale, did not show differences between treatments. This study contributes to the exploration of positive emotional states, and thus good welfare, in rats as it identified the first facial indicators of positive emotions following a positive heterospecific play treatment. Furthermore, it provides improvements to the photography technique and image analysis for the detection of fine differences in facial expression, and also adds to the refinement of the tickling procedure.

Positive welfare and related terms such as good welfare, happiness, and a good life are increasingly used in the animal welfare science literature. Overall, they highlight the welfare benefits of providing animals opportunities for positive experiences, beyond the alleviation of suffering. However, the various terms remain loosely defined and are sometimes used interchangeably, resulting in discrepancy. In this perspective article, we lay out the terms and concepts used in the literature. We identify two distinct views: “ hedonic positive welfare ,” arising from likes and wants and their positive outcomes on welfare; and “ positive welfare balance ,” as an overall positive welfare state based on positive experiences outweighing negative ones. Eudaimonia , satisfaction with one's life, may emerge as a third view. We propose a framework that is applicable across the different views. The “Vienna Framework” outlines different facets: frequency, duration, arousal, context, previous experience, individual differences, sense of agency, and long-term benefit. The framework aims to encourage researchers to consider the relevance of these facets for their own research, to indicate how the facets are affected by different interventions (e.g., greater sense of agency in enriched compared to non-enriched animals), or to compare different topics with respect to the different facets (e.g., high arousal of play behavior and low arousal of social affiliation). We encourage researchers to carefully consider and clearly state how their work falls along these views and facets, conceptually, and operationally. This should prevent dilution of the meaning of positive welfare and thereby preserve its potential to improve the welfare of animals.