ArticleScientific reports2024
Place conditioning as evaluation of affective valence in piglets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gentle human interactions trigger positive emotions in chicks.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
- Behavioral assessment of pain in rodents: advances from evoked responses to spontaneous states and multimodal approaches.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Calves disbudded with local nerve block and analgesic show conditioned place aversion two days later but not in the hours post-disbudding.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emotional valence of animals is challenging to assess, despite being a key component of welfare. In this study, we attempted to assess emotional valence through memory in 1- and 3-week-old piglets. It was hypothesized that piglets would spend less time in a pen where they experienced a negative event (castration) and more time in a pen where they experienced a positive event (enrichment). A testing apparatus was designed with three equally sized pens: two outer sections serving as treatment pens containing unique visual and tactile cues and a center section remaining neutral. Piglets received either negative or positive condition in one outer treatment pen and a sham treatment in the opposite. Various methods were tested (age of piglets, number and length of conditioning sessions, passive vs. active conditioning). Contrary to expectations, piglets did not decrease their time in the pen associated with the negative condition or increase their time in the pen associated with the positive condition. However, when exposed to the positive condition, results indicate older piglets developed an aversion towards the sham treatment. This study provides methodological groundwork for the application of place conditioning in piglets and highlights the nuances important for the use of cognitive tests to assess animal welfare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.