The effects of housing conditions on judgement bias in Japanese quail

Horváth, Mária Dóra; Pichová, Katarína; Košťál, Ľubor

doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2016.09.007

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, with its small effect size even in Exploratory birds (which would increase risks of Type II error in studies less well powered than our own), and lack of significant main effect across all hens (due to an even smaller overall effect size), our result joins several previous studies generating null or equivocal findings for animal judgment bias 5,6,73,74 ), including work showing little influence of long-term differential housing on birds (starlings 66 ; hens 75 ; quails 76 ) and published null findings in birds 63,66,75,77 . This could perhaps indicate that birds do not have strong judgment bias responses to affective changes (after all, in the few avian cases where predictions were partially supported, results may have been artefacts of study design, affectively unclear manipulations, or small sample sizes 59,60,62,78 ); and/or, as outlined in the Introduction, that judgment bias tests are less sensitive to positive affect than to negative 8,52 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Welfare-improving enrichments greatly reduce hens’ startle responses, despite little change in judgment bias

Ross

Garland

Harlander-Matauschek

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responses to ambiguous and aversive stimuli (e.g. via tests of judgment bias and measures of startle amplitude) can indicate mammals’ affective states. We hypothesised that such findings generalize to birds, and that these two responses co-vary (since both involve stimulus evaluation). To validate startle reflexes (involuntary responses to sudden aversive stimuli) and responses in a judgment bias task as indicators of avian affective state, we differentially housed hens with or without preferred enrichments assumed to improve mood (in a crossover design). To control for personality, we first measured hens’ baseline exploration levels. To infer judgment bias, control and enriched hens were trained to discriminate between white and dark grey cues (associated with reward and punishment, respectively), and then probed with intermediate shades of grey. For startle reflexes, forceplates assessed responses to a light flash. Judgment bias was only partially validated: Exploratory hens showed more ‘optimism’ when enriched, but Non-exploratory hens did not. Across all birds, however, startle amplitudes were dramatically reduced by enrichment (albeit more strongly in Exploratory subjects): the first evidence that avian startle is affectively modulated. Startle and judgment biases did not co-vary, suggesting different underlying mechanisms. Of the two measures, startle reflexes thus seem most sensitive to avian affective state.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 71%

Welfare-improving enrichments greatly reduce hens’ startle responses, despite little change in judgment bias

Ross

Garland

Harlander-Matauschek

et al. 2019

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study in sheep, chronic stress, which was confirmed by HPA-axis dysregulation, against expectations reduced rather than increased vigilance to a predator threat (Verbeek et al 2019). Explanations given for the lack of effects or effects opposite to expectations in this sheep study and in a quail study were a poor sensitivity of the test, or the context of the test (e.g., test arena and handling) which may have overruled the putative long-term effects of housing conditions on mood (Horváth et al 2016; Verbeek et al 2019). The latter could hold for our study as well, as pigs from barren housing may have experienced the release from their suboptimal environment to the test arena as more positive than enriched housed pigs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Effects of early and later life environmental enrichment and personality on attention bias in pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus)

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated effects of early and later life housing on attention bias, as an indicator of affective state, in pigs differing in coping style [reactive (LR) vs. proactive (HR)]. Pigs (n = 128) in barren or enriched housing from birth (B1 vs. E1) that experienced either a switch in housing at 7 weeks of age or not (creating B1B2, B1E2, E1E2, and E1B2 treatments), were studied in a 180-s attention bias test at 11 weeks. Pigs exposed to a 10-s-auditory-and-sudden-motion threat in the test arena paid more attention to the location of the threat, were more vigilant, showed less eating, more walking and were more likely to utter high-pitched vocalisations than non-threat pigs. During threat presence, HR pigs from post-switch enriched housing (E2-HR, i.e., B1E2 + E1E2) showed more vigilance but less exploration than others. After threat removal, no effects were found on time spent paying attention to the threat, vigilance, and eating, but E2-HR pigs paid attention to the threat more frequently, were more likely to utter high-pitched vocalisations and walked more compared to (part of) other groups, suggesting the most negative affective state in these animals. E2 pigs grunted more than B2 pigs. Thus, current housing, but not early life housing, affected behaviour in a personality-dependent manner in this attention bias test. Housing effects were opposite to expectation, possibly due to the short-term effect of the relative contrast between the home pens of the pigs and the test room. This potentially overruled putative long-term effects of environmental conditions on attention bias.

show abstract

“…For example, it has been hypothesized that restraining individuals will lead to a more negative mood and, accordingly result in a more negative judgment of ambiguous cues. However, these individuals were reported to display a more positive judgment of the ambiguous cues than control individuals ( Doyle et al, 2010 ; Briefer Freymond et al, 2014 ; Wheeler et al, 2015 ; Horváth et al, 2016 ). Additionally, similarly valenced states, such as depression, anxiety and fear, do not always have the same effects on a situation cognitive appraisal ( Lerner and Keltner, 2000 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Our results show that testing mismatch not only modulates the effect of mood induction mismatch (at least for negative mood induction mismatch, n = 7) but can even reverse that effect (at least for positive testing mismatch, n = 6). For four studies ( Doyle et al, 2010 ; Briefer Freymond et al, 2014 ; Wheeler et al, 2015 ; Horváth et al, 2016 ), this positive testing mismatch corresponds to the notion of Baciadonna and McElligott (2015) that releasing animals from a short-term stressor induces positive emotional states. Doyle et al (2010) explained that restrained and isolated subjects had a more positive outcome in the judgment task, either because the releasing from a restraining situation induced a more positive emotional state than with the unrestrained control subjects, or because the exposure to a strong negative treatment may have altered their risk-taking threshold.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affective states are known to influence behavior and cognitive processes. To assess mood (moderately long-term affective states), the cognitive judgment bias test was developed and has been widely used in various animal species. However, little is known about how mood changes, how mood can be experimentally manipulated, and how mood then feeds back into cognitive judgment. A recent theory argues that mood reflects the cumulative impact of differences between obtained outcomes and expectations. Here expectations refer to an established context. Situations in which an established context fails to match an outcome are then perceived as mismatches of expectation and outcome. We take advantage of the large number of studies published on non-verbal cognitive bias tests in recent years (95 studies with a total of 162 independent tests) to test whether cumulative mismatch could indeed have led to the observed mood changes. Based on a criteria list, we assessed whether mismatch had occurred with the experimental procedure used to induce mood (mood induction mismatch), or in the context of the non-verbal cognitive bias procedure (testing mismatch). For the mood induction mismatch, we scored the mismatch between the subjects’ potential expectations and the manipulations conducted for inducing mood whereas, for the testing mismatch, we scored mismatches that may have occurred during the actual testing. We then investigated whether these two types of mismatch can predict the actual outcome of the cognitive bias study. The present evaluation shows that mood induction mismatch cannot well predict the success of a cognitive bias test. On the other hand, testing mismatch can modulate or even inverse the expected outcome. We think, cognitive bias studies should more specifically aim at creating expectation mismatch while inducing mood states to test the cumulative mismatch theory more properly. Furthermore, testing mismatch should be avoided as much as possible because it can reverse the affective state of animals as measured in a cognitive judgment bias paradigm.

show abstract

The effects of housing conditions on judgement bias in Japanese quail

Cited by 16 publications

References 54 publications

Welfare-improving enrichments greatly reduce hens’ startle responses, despite little change in judgment bias

Welfare-improving enrichments greatly reduce hens’ startle responses, despite little change in judgment bias

Effects of early and later life environmental enrichment and personality on attention bias in pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus)

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About