Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35781584›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2022

Cognitive bias in animal behavior science: a philosophical perspective.

Behzad Nematipour, Marko Bračić, Ulrich Krohs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Optimism and pessimism: a concept for behavioural ecology.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Modifying the Attention Bias Test to Assess the Emotional State of Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Listen to Us: Perceptions of Animal Voice and Agency.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Behzad NematipourCenter for Philosophy of Science, University of Münster, Domplatz 23, 48143, Münster, Germany. behzad.nematipour@uni-muenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0329-4107
Marko BračićDepartment of Behavioural Biology, University of Münster, Badestr. 13, 48149, Münster, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6528-3572
Ulrich KrohsDepartment of Philosophy, University of Münster, Domplatz 23, 48143, Münster, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5524-9626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emotional states of animals influence their cognitive processes as well as their behavior. Assessing emotional states is important for animal welfare science as well as for many fields of neuroscience, behavior science, and biomedicine. This can be done in different ways, e.g. through assessing animals' physiological states or interpreting their behaviors. This paper focuses on the so-called cognitive judgment bias test, which has gained special attention in the last 2 decades and has become a highly important tool for measuring emotional states in non-human animals. However, less attention has been given to the epistemology of the cognitive judgment bias test and to disentangling the relevance of different steps in the underlying cognitive mechanisms. This paper sheds some light on both the epistemology of the methods and the architecture of the underlying cognitive abilities of the tested animals. Based on this reconstruction, we propose a scheme for classifying and assessing different cognitive abilities involved in cognitive judgment bias tests.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalJudgmentAnimalsBiasCognitionEmotionsAmbiguous stimuliCognitive biasDecision-makingEmotionsJudgment biasRepresentation

Identifiers

PMID35781584
PMCPMC9334413

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.