Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33108399›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Using judgment bias test in pet and shelter dogs (Canis familiaris): Methodological and statistical caveats.

Carlotta Burani, Shanis Barnard, Deborah Wells, Annalisa Pelosi, Paola Valsecchi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Modifying the Attention Bias Test to Assess the Emotional State of Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Carlotta BuraniDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italia.ORCID 0000-0003-0542-8228
Shanis BarnardAnimal Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Deborah WellsAnimal Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.
Annalisa PelosiDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italia.
Paola ValsecchiDipartimento di Scienze Chimiche, della Vita e della Sostenibilità Ambientale, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma, Italia.
University of Parma · ITQueen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB.J021385/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

BiasJudgmentStatistics as TopicAnimalsDogsFemaleLearningMaleOptimismPessimismPetsReaction TimeSmell

Identifiers

PMID33108399
PMCPMC7591058
OpenAlexW3097601652

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.