Trial reportPloS one2025
Neuromechanisms and subjective experiences during human-dog interactions: Assessing motivation and mental state in a randomized, controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The neural and physiological mechanisms of Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAI): A systematic review and integrated framework.Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2026Review
- Neural signature of human-dog interactions: EEG correlates from comparisons with plant and replica dog in a within-subject, cross-over randomized trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal Assisted Interventions (AAIs) have been shown to have several effects in humans but the underlying cerebral mechanisms are still widely unknown. This research explored the neurological aspects of human-animal interactions. Specifically, we focused on frontal alpha asymmetry (FAA), a feature indicating differences in alpha power between the left and right frontal cortex, which is recognized as a correlate of approach motivation and positive affect. Twenty-nine healthy adults participated in this study, in which we used electroencephalography to measure their brain activity. The study comprised five phases: baseline measurements, interaction with a real dog, interaction with a replica dog, interaction with a plant, and a neutral phase. Participants had both physical and visual contact with the real dog, the replica and the plant, and the procedure was repeated three times for each participant. We also assessed participants' subjective experiences of mental states and intrinsic motivation through the Multidimensional Well-Being and the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaires. The objective measurements of motivation and positive affect through FAA did not show a significant difference between interactions with a real dog and control conditions, but the subjective assessments differed. Participants reported significantly higher motivation and a more positive state of mind after interacting with a real dog compared to the control conditions. These results could be considered in therapeutic settings when determining whether to incorporate an animal into a treatment plan. In summary, this study highlights the complexity of human-animal interactions (HAI) and shows an intricate interplay between objective and subjective measurements. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering both neural markers and subjective experiences for understanding the nuanced mechanisms involved in the meaningful connections humans have with animals.
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.