Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39448780›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

On your terms or mine: pigs' response to imposed gentle tactile contact vs. free form interaction with a familiar human.

Suzanne Truong, Oceane Schmitt, Jean-Loup Rault

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Suzanne TruongCentre for Animal Nutrition and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Oceane SchmittCentre for Animal Nutrition and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria.
Jean-Loup RaultCentre for Animal Nutrition and Welfare, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria. Jean-Loup.Rault@vetmeduni.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund P 33669-B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive human-animal interactions (HAIs) can be intrinsically rewarding and facilitate positive human-animal relationships. However, HAI paradigms vary across studies, and the influence of different interaction paradigms on the animal's response has been overlooked. We compared the behavioural responses of pigs (n = 28) individually tested with two types of gentle tactile interactions with a familiar human: 'free form (FF)' where the pig could voluntarily approach and interact as they normally would, and 'imposed contact (IC)' where the human imposed tactile contact on the pig according to a standardised protocol. Pigs did not differ in their level of engagement with the human between the two types of interactions. However, they differed in their behaviour as they explored the pen more during the FF test, while they emitted more low-pitched vocalisations (grunts) during the IC test. These differences can likely be imputed to the IC test differing to the pigs' habituation to human contact, which could have evoked greater attention to the human or triggered frustration due to violation of expectation. These findings highlight the influence of the predictability of the interaction or level of agency provided to the animal in HAI tests and relation to their previous experience of interacting.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalTouchAnimalsFemaleHuman-Animal BondHuman-Animal InteractionHumansMaleSwineAgencyExpectancy violationHuman–animal interactionsHuman–animal relationshipNaturalistic interactionsPositive animal welfare

Identifiers

PMID39448780
PMCPMC11502703

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.