Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): Methodological and statistical caveats.
Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): Methodological and statistical caveats.
复制标题
使用宠物和庇护犬（Canis familis）中的判断偏见测试：方法论和统计警告。
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0241344
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Valsecchi P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burani C;Barnard S;Wells D;Pelosi A;Valsecchi P
现在人们普遍认为，积极的情感状态是动物健康的关键组成部分。判断偏差测试是一种广泛使用的工具，用于评估动物的乐观/悲观态度，并评估他们的情绪状态和福利。判断偏差测试已经在狗身上使用了几次，在大多数情况下，使用空间测试，将碗放在模棱两可的位置，位于相对积极的训练位置(P)之间，其中包含一个诱饵碗和相对消极的训练位置(N)，其中包含一个空碗。在模棱两可的位置接近碗的延迟是狗对积极/消极结果的期望的一个指标。然而，这些测试的结果往往是不确定的。本研究对51只收容犬和40只宠物犬的判断偏差测试进行了深入分析。收容所的狗比宠物狗表现得更悲观。但是，只有在分析到达位置的原始延迟时才能检测到这两个群体之间的差异，而不是更常用的调整分数（即平均延迟值）。此外，还发现了几个方法学上的注意事项。首先，一个不可忽略的百分比的狗没有通过训练阶段，可能是由于实验范式不完全适合这个物种。其次，结果显示狗对训练位置的反应具有很高的内部变异性，即狗的反应在整个测试过程中并不一致，这表明动物可能没有完全了解位置与其结果之间的联系。第三，狗对相邻地点的行为并不总是不同的，这引起了人们对动物区分地点能力的怀疑。最后，研究人员的存在对狗的表现产生了潜在的影响。讨论了这些发现的意义和可能的解决方案。
It is now widely agreed that a positive affective state is a crucial component of animal well-being. The judgment bias test represents a widespread tool used to assess animals’ optimistic/pessimistic attitude and to evaluate their emotional state and welfare. Judgment bias tests have been used several times with dogs (Canis familiaris), in most cases using a spatial test with a bowl placed in ambiguous positions located between a relatively positive trained location (P) which contains a baited bowl and a relatively negative trained location (N) which contains an empty bowl. The latency to approach the bowl in the ambiguous locations is an indicator of the dog’s expectation of a positive/negative outcome. However, results from such tests are often inconclusive. For the present study, the judgment bias test performance of 51 shelter dogs and 40 pet dogs was thoroughly analysed. A pattern emerged with shelter dogs behaving in a more pessimistic-like way than pet dogs. However, this difference between the two populations was detected only when analysing the raw latencies to reach the locations and not the more commonly applied adjusted score (i.e. average latency values). Furthermore, several methodological caveats were found. First of all, a non-negligible percentage of dogs did not pass the training phase, possibly due to the experimental paradigm not being fully suited for this species. Second, results showed a high intra-dog variability in response to the trained locations, i.e. the dogs’ responses were not consistent throughout the test, suggesting that animals may not have fully learned the association between locations and their outcomes. Third, dogs did not always behave differently towards adjacent locations, raising doubts about the animals’ ability to discriminate between locations. Finally, a potential influence of the researcher’s presence on dogs’ performance emerged from analyses. The implications of these findings and potential solutions are discussed.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Duranton, C.;Horowitz, A.
通讯作者：
Horowitz, A.
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Duepjan, Sandra;Stracke, Jenny;Puppe, Birger
通讯作者：
Puppe, Birger
DOI：
10.1016/j.vascn.2016.09.005
发表时间：
2017-01
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Scullion Hall LE;Robinson S;Finch J;Buchanan-Smith HM
通讯作者：
Buchanan-Smith HM
影响因子：
5.8
作者：
Armstrong, Mark;Zhou, Jidong
通讯作者：
Zhou, Jidong
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Doyle, Rebecca E.;Fisher, Andrew D.;Lee, Caroline
通讯作者：
Lee, Caroline