Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33839953›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2021

Male mice and cows perceive human emotional chemosignals: a preliminary study.

Alexandra Destrez, Morgane Costes-Thiré, Anne-Sophie Viart, Floriane Prost, Bruno Patris, Benoist Schaal

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra DestrezCentre des Sciences du Goût et de L'Alimentation, UMR6265 CNRS, Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, INRAE, Agrosup Dijon, Dijon, France. alexandra.destrez@agrosupdijon.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1274-8556
Morgane Costes-ThiréAgroSup Dijon, Unité Pédagogique de Productions Animales, Dijon, France.
Anne-Sophie ViartAgroSup Dijon, Unité Pédagogique de Productions Animales, Dijon, France.
Floriane ProstAgroSup Dijon, Unité Pédagogique de Productions Animales, Dijon, France.
Bruno PatrisCentre des Sciences du Goût et de L'Alimentation, UMR6265 CNRS, Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, INRAE, Agrosup Dijon, Dijon, France.
Benoist SchaalCentre des Sciences du Goût et de L'Alimentation, UMR6265 CNRS, Université de Bourgogne Franche-Comté, INRAE, Agrosup Dijon, Dijon, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitut Agro Dijon · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Olfactory cues of individuals of the same species or from different species may induce changes in behaviors and physiological reactions in mammals. However, there are few studies on the influence of human odor on animal behavior and welfare, especially those of rodents and farm animals. The present study aimed to investigate whether the odor of a stressed human (in sweat) would modify the behavior of mice and cows. We hypothesized that laboratory and farm animals can perceive human emotions though olfactory cues and that human emotional chemosignals can modify their behavioral reactions and welfare. Two odors of human axillary sweat were collected from engineering students (n = 25, 14 females and 11 males; 21.1 ± 0.7 years old, range: 19-23 years old): a "stress" odor collected after an exam and a "non-stress" odor collected after a standard class. Two experiments were then conducted to test the discrimination of these two odors by male mice (n = 20) under standard conditions and by cows (n = 10) under farm conditions. During the experiments, the behavioral responses of the animals to both odors (through a dispenser for the mice and a bucket for the cows) were observed. The mice produced significantly (p = 0.004) more fecal pellets with the stress odor dispenser than with the non-stress-odor dispenser. The cows spent significantly (p = 0.04) more time smelling the non-stress-odor bucket than control. For both species, the other behaviors observed did not differ significantly between the odors. Mice and cows seemed to perceive and react to stressful human chemosignals. Mice showed physiological reactions that indicated stress in response to the stress odor of humans, while cows showed preference reactions in response to the non-stress odor of humans. This preliminary study showed that laboratory and farm animals, such as male mice and cows, seemed to discriminate certain odors emitted by humans that were likely related to different emotions. Animals may recognize stressful human chemosignals, associate these signals with negative husbandry practices or human-animal relationships, and consequently modify their behavior.

Indexed as

EmotionsPheromones, HumanAnimalsBehavior, AnimalCattleFemaleHumansMaleMiceOdorantsSmellPheromones, HumanBody odorsCattleChemosignalsHuman–animal relationshipLab animalsStress

Identifiers

PMID33839953
OpenAlexW3155399126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.