Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31778680›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2020

Towards a comparative science of emotion: Affect and consciousness in humans and animals.

Elizabeth S Paul, Shlomi Sher, Marco Tamietto, Piotr Winkielman, Michael T Mendl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
–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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Exploring emotional expression in invertebrates: mechanisms, functions and phylogeny.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Tail-rattling in rodents: more than a threat display.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Consciousness at sea.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The metabolic basis of cancer-related fatigue.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Review
  13. Emotion in Nonverbal Communication: Comparing Animal and Human Vocalizations and Human Text Messages.Emotion review : journal of the International Society for Research on Emotion · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Elizabeth S PaulBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK. Electronic address: e.paul@bristol.ac.uk.
Shlomi SherDepartment of Psychology, Pomona College, Claremont, CA, USA.
Marco TamiettoDepartment of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Piotr WinkielmanDepartment of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA; Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, 03-815, Warsaw, Poland.
Michael T MendlBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P019218/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T002654Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T002654/1National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research NC/K00008X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The componential view of human emotion recognises that affective states comprise conscious, behavioural, physiological, neural and cognitive elements. Although many animals display bodily and behavioural changes consistent with the occurrence of affective states similar to those seen in humans, the question of whether and in which species these are accompanied by conscious experiences remains controversial. Finding scientifically valid methods for investigating markers for the subjective component of affect in both humans and animals is central to developing a comparative understanding of the processes and mechanisms of affect and its evolution and distribution across taxonomic groups, to our understanding of animal welfare, and to the development of animal models of affective disorders. Here, contemporary evidence indicating potential markers of conscious processing in animals is reviewed, with a view to extending this search to include markers of conscious affective processing. We do this by combining animal-focused approaches with investigations of the components of conscious and non-conscious emotional processing in humans, and neuropsychological research into the structure and functions of conscious emotions.

Indexed as

Unconscious, PsychologyAnimalsBrainConsciousnessEmotionsHumansInteroceptionNeurosciencesAffectAnimalsComponentialConsciousnessInteroceptionNeural correlatesSubjective emotionUnconscious emotion

Identifiers

PMID31778680
PMCPMC6966324

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.