Does the cognitive bias test in dogs depend on spatial learning?

Gruen, Margaret E.; Foster, Melanie L.; Lazarowski, Lucia; Jeffries, Amanda; Sherman, Barbara L.; Dorman, David C.

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2019.04.002

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The judgement bias procedure was adapted from the protocols described in other studies of canine judgement bias (e.g., Gruen et al 2019 ; Mendl et al 2010 ; Wells et al 2017 ). The start location of the food bowls was marked on the ground using masking tape.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although only one bowl was presented in a single trial, five identical bowls were assigned as either N, NN, M, NP or P. These bowls stayed consistent across dogs and sessions. Nine ambiguous probe test trials were collected within one session in the order: M, NP, NN, NP, NN, M, NN, M, NP (as replicated from Gruen et al 2019 and Wells et al 2017 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The general procedure for this spatial judgement task is as follows: a positive location is paired with food (baited) and a negative location is paired with no reward (non-baited). The most common presentation used with domestic dogs utilises the placement of dog food bowls (e.g., Duranton and Horowitz 2019 ; Gruen et al 2019 ; Kis et al 2015 ; Mendl et al 2010 ; Müller et al 2012 ; Wells et al 2017 . However, see Burman et al 2011 for a paradigm using coloured card, and Burani et al 2022 using discrete corridors).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the test phase, the dog is presented with ambiguous stimuli over a series of trials, in this case, a bowl in one of three positions between the far right ‘Positive’ and far-left ‘Negative’ positions; either ‘Near Negative’ (NN), ‘Middle’ (M) or ‘Near Positive’ (NP). The dog’s latency to approach these ambiguous stimuli has been widely used as a measure of that dog’s affective state (e.g., Burani et al 2020 ; Burman et al 2011 ; Gruen et al 2019 ; Karagiannis et al 2015 ; Mendl et al 2010 ; Müller et al 2012 ; Wells et al 2017 and Willen et al 2019 who used the five bowl protocol as described above, and Duranton and Horowitz 2019 ; Kis et al 2015 and Harvey et al 2020 who used a modified protocol with M as the only ambiguous location). If the dog is faster to approach the ambiguous bowl, it indicates a positive judgement bias (more “optimistic”), whereas a slower approach suggests a negative judgement bias (more “pessimistic”).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The effect of repeated testing on judgement bias in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Wilson¹,

Campbell

Arnott³

et al. 2022

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgement bias paradigms are increasingly being used as a measure of affective state in dogs. Approach to an ambiguous stimulus is commonly used as a measure of affect, however, this may also be influenced by learning. This study directly measured the impact of learning on a commonly used judgement bias paradigm in the absence of an affective state manipulation. Dogs (N = 15) were tested on a judgement bias task across five sessions. The dogs’ latency to approach a bowl placed in one of three ambiguous locations between non-baited (negative) and baited (positive) locations was measured. Results show that session number had a significant effect on the dogs’ latencies to reach the ambiguous bowl locations, with post-hoc tests revealing that dogs were significantly slower to approach the locations as the number of sessions increased. Session number also had a significant effect on the number of times the dogs did not approach the bowl within 30 s of being released, with the number of no approaches generally increasing across sessions. When dog identity was included as a fixed effect, a significant effect on latency to approach was found, suggesting that some dogs were consistently faster than others across sessions. To assess whether the paradigm produced repeatable results, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were used. A low degree of reliability was found between latencies to approach each bowl position across sessions. This study demonstrates that dogs learned that the ambiguous locations were not rewarded with repeated exposures, and that this impacted their responses. We conclude that this judgement bias paradigm may require further consideration if applied across multiple exposures and that repeated results should be interpreted with caution as they are likely impacted by learning.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%