ArticleScientific reports2024
On your terms or mine: pigs' response to imposed gentle tactile contact vs. free form interaction with a familiar human.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring wanting and liking during positive human-animal interactions.Psychopharmacology · 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
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
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.