What can inactivity (in its various forms) reveal about affective states in non-human animals? A review

Abstract

Captive / domestic animals are often described as inactive, with the implicit or explicit implication that this high level of inactivity is a welfare problem. Conversely, not being inactive enough may also indicate or cause poor welfare. In humans, too much inactivity can certainly be associated with either negative or positive affective states. In non-human animals, however, the affective states associated with elevated or suppressed levels of inactivity are still not well understood. Part of the complexity is due to the fact that there are many different forms of inactivity, each likely associated with very different affective states. This paper has two aims. One is to identify specific forms of inactivity that can be used as indicators of specific affective states in animals. The other is to identify issues that need to be resolved before we could validly use the remaining, not yet validated forms of inactivity as indicators of affective state. We briefly discuss how inactivity is defined and assessed in the literature, and then how inactivity in its various forms relates to affective (either negative or positive) states in animals, basing our reasoning on linguistic reports of affective states collected from humans displaying inactivity phenotypically similar to that displayed by animals in similar situations, and, when possible, on pharmacological validation. Specific forms of inactivity expressed in response to perceived threats (freezing, tonic immobility, and hiding) appear to be, to date, the best-validated indicators of specific affective states in animals. We also identify a number of specific forms of inactivity likely to reflect either negative (associated with ill-heath, boredom-like, and depression-like conditions), or positive states (e.g. 'sunbasking', post-consummatory inactivity), although further research is warranted before we could use those forms as indicators of the affective states. We further discuss the relationship between increased inactivity and affective states by presenting misleading situations likely to yield wrong conclusions. We conclude that more attention should be paid to inactivity in animal welfare studies: specific forms of inactivity identified in this paper are, or have the potential to be, useful indicators of affective (welfare) states in animals. Other specific forms are likely to be linked with either negative or positive states. What can inactivity (in its variousWe propose further research directions to further validate those forms of inactivity. Captive / domestic animals are often described as inactive, with the implicit or explicit 16 implication that this high level of inactivity is a welfare problem. Conversely, not being 17 inactive enough may also indicate or cause poor welfare. In humans, too much inactivity can 18 certainly be associated with either negative or positive affective states. In non-human 19 animals, however, the affective states associated with elevated or suppressed levels of 20 inactivity are still not well understood. 21Part of ...

Indicators of Horse Welfare: State-of-the-Art

“…When under sub-optimal conditions, horses can develop an apathetic state, related to depressed-like syndromes [28,29,52,65,92], characterized by sensorial withdrawal (visual and tactile [28,92]) and a general flattened posture [92]. This syndrome, first identified for horses working in developing countries [28,30], has also been identified in riding school horses in France [35,52,92], and is related to the occurrence of health (work-related wounds [29,30], low BCS and lameness [28]), physiological (depressed cortisol levels [92]) and behavioural/psychological (anhedonia: [52]) disorders. However, Burn et al [65] found only a moderate inter-observer agreement for their horse population.…”

The effects of enrichment novelty versus complexity in cages of group-housed rats (Rattus norvegicus)

“…The results show clear differences between rats experiencing complex and novel housing also been demonstrated to denote good welfare in laboratory rats (Manser, 1992;Blanchard et al, 1995;Haller et al, 1998;Tsai et al, 2003;Živkovic et al, 2005). Similarly, aggression, non-aggressive social interaction, awake non-active behaviours, away from enrichment, underneath hopper and audible vocalizations have been used to judge the welfare of laboratory rodents with elevated levels being indicative of a generally compromised welfare state (Adams, 1977;Vivian and Miczek, 1993;Marashi et al, 2004; see also Fureix and Meagher 2016). One reason why non-aggressive social interaction may be related to poor welfare is that it may induce aggressive responses in laboratory rodents by increasing the chance that two rats in a cage meet or come in to direct contact with each other.…”

Development of a computer vision system to detect inactivity in group-housed pigs

“…Animals have also been known to decrease general activity when threatened by predators or when they feel danger [15] . While inactivity or its lack thereof is not usually a definitive indicator of an animal's welfare state [16] , it could point the farmer in the right direction so that further investigations can be carried out on the animal concerned.…”