Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26244335›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The Way Humans Behave Modulates the Emotional State of Piglets.

Sophie Brajon, Jean-Paul Laforest, Océane Schmitt, Nicolas Devillers

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Evaluation of miRNA as Biomarkers of Emotional Valence in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. How Can We Assess Positive Welfare in Ruminants?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sophie BrajonAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, 2000 College Street, Sherbrooke, Quebec, J1M 0C8, Canada; Université Laval, Department of Animal Science, 2325 Rue de l'Université, Quebec city, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Jean-Paul LaforestUniversité Laval, Department of Animal Science, 2325 Rue de l'Université, Quebec city, Quebec, G1V 0A6, Canada.
Océane SchmittAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, 2000 College Street, Sherbrooke, Quebec, J1M 0C8, Canada.
Nicolas DevillersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Dairy and Swine Research and Development Centre, 2000 College Street, Sherbrooke, Quebec, J1M 0C8, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emotional state can influence decision-making under ambiguity. Cognitive bias tests (CBT) proved to be a promising indicator of the affective valence of animals in a context of farm animal welfare. Although it is well-known that humans can influence the intensity of fear and reactions of animals, research on cognitive bias often focusses on housing and management conditions and neglects the role of humans on emotional states of animals. The present study aimed at investigating whether humans can modulate the emotional state of weaned piglets. Fifty-four piglets received a chronic experience with humans: gentle (GEN), rough (ROU) or minimal contact (MIN). Simultaneously, they were individually trained on a go/no-go task to discriminate a positive auditory cue, associated with food reward in a trough, from a negative one, associated with punishments (e.g. water spray). Independently of the treatment (P = 0.82), 59% of piglets completed the training. Successfully trained piglets were then subjected to CBT, including ambiguous cues in presence or absence of a human observer. As hypothesized, GEN piglets showed a positive judgement bias, as shown by their higher percentage of go responses following an ambiguous cue compared to ROU (P = 0.03) and MIN (P = 0.02) piglets, whereas ROU and MIN piglets did not differ (P > 0.10). The presence of an observer during CBT did not modulate the percentage of go responses following an ambiguous cue (P > 0.10). However, regardless of the treatment, piglets spent less time in contact with the trough following positive cues during CBT in which the observer was present than absent (P < 0.0001). This study originally demonstrates that the nature of a chronic experience with humans can induce a judgement bias indicating that the emotional state of farm animals such as piglets can be affected by the way humans interact with them.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimal WelfareEmotionsAnimalsCognitionFearFemaleHumansMaleRewardSwine

Identifiers

PMID26244335
PMCPMC4526664

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.