Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30459682›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Better, Not Just More-Contrast in Qualitative Aspects of Reward Facilitates Impulse Control in Pigs.

Manuela Zebunke, Maren Kreiser, Nina Melzer, Jan Langbein, Birger Puppe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Animal affect, welfare and the Bayesian brain.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Manuela ZebunkeInstitute of Genetics and Biometry, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
Maren KreiserInstitute of Genetics and Biometry, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
Nina MelzerInstitute of Genetics and Biometry, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
Jan LangbeinInstitute of Behavioural Physiology, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
Birger PuppeInstitute of Behavioural Physiology, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
University of Rostock · DEZimmer Biomet (Germany) · DEResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delay-of-gratification paradigms, such as the famous "Marshmallow Test," are designed to investigate the complex cognitive concepts of self-control and impulse control in humans and animals. Such tests determine whether a subject will demonstrate impulse control by choosing a large, delayed reward over an immediate, but smaller reward. Documented relationships between impulsive behavior and aggression in humans and animals suggest important implications for farm animal husbandry and welfare, especially in terms of inadequate social behavior, tail biting and maternal behavior. In a preliminary study, we investigated whether the extent of impulse control would differ between quantitatively and qualitatively different aspects of reward in pigs. Twenty female piglets were randomly divided into two groups, with 10 piglets each. After a preference test to determine individual reward preference among six different food items, a discrimination test was conducted to train for successful discrimination between different amounts of reward (one piece vs. four pieces) and different qualitative aspects of reward (highly preferred vs. least preferred food item). Then, an increasing delay (2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32 s) was introduced for the larger/highly preferred reward. Each piglet could choose to get the smaller/least preferred reward immediately or to wait for the larger/highly preferred reward. Piglets showed clear differences in their preference for food items. Moreover, the "quality group" displayed faster learning in the discrimination test (number of sessions until 90% of the animals completed the discrimination test: "quality group"-3 days vs. "quantity group"-5 days) and reached a higher level of impulse control in the delay-of-gratification test compared to the "quantity group" (maximum delay that was mastered: "quality group"-24 s vs. "quantity group"-8 s). These results demonstrate that impulse control is present in piglets but that the opportunity to get a highly preferred reward is more valued than the opportunity to get more of a given reward. This outcome also underlines the crucial role of motivation in cognitive test paradigms. Further investigations will examine whether impulse control is related to traits that are relevant to animal husbandry and welfare.

Indexed as

delay choice taskdelay of gratificationdiscrimination learningimpulsivitymotivationpigspreference testreward learning

Identifiers

PMID30459682
PMCPMC6232270
OpenAlexW2899703538

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.