ArticleScientific reports2025
Human recognition of emotional valence and arousal of zoo animals.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Human recognition of feline stress-related behavioral states from visual cues depends on observer characteristics.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Correctly identifying emotions of other species is central to the welfare of animals in our care; yet, the factors underlying variation in our ability to recognise animal emotions remain unclear. Here, we investigated the human ability to recognise emotional valence and arousal in zoo-living Barbary macaques, tigers, and markhors, in short video clips from which contextual information and other clues were removed. Visitors at Korkeasaari Zoo were recruited to rate valence and arousal, and their ratings were analysed for correct identification of positive vs. negative valence and low vs. high arousal. Overall, arousal was more accurately recognised than valence, low arousal more accurately than high arousal, and negative valence more accurately than positive valence. Moreover, recognition accuracy varied among species being rated. Valence was recognised most accurately in macaques, arousal most accurately in markhors, and tigers' emotional states were recognised the least accurately, both for valence and arousal. The results suggest that while we can recognise non-domesticated species' emotional states, accuracy varies depending on the species and the emotional state in question, which highlights the importance of training in assessing animal welfare. Overall, considering animal welfare, it is crucial that we improve education for the identification of animal emotions, both positive and negative ones.
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.