4.7 Article

Evaluating Self-Directed Behaviours and Their Association with Emotional Arousal across Two Cognitive Tasks in Bonobos (Pan paniscus)

期刊

ANIMALS
卷 12, 期 21, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ani12213002

关键词

arousal; bonobo; displacement behaviour; emotion; great ape; laterality; self-directed behaviour; touchscreen

资金

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [11G3220N, 12Q5419N, 1124921N]
  2. Flemish government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the production and asymmetry of self-directed behaviors (SDBs) in zoo-housed bonobos during cognitive touchscreen tasks. The most common SDB was nose wiping, followed by gentle self-scratching and rough self-scratching. Bonobos showed more nose wiping and rough self-scratching when they made incorrect responses, indicating arousal and possibly frustration. In addition, rough self-scratching was more directed towards the left side of the body, suggesting a link to negative emotions. Interestingly, bonobos engaged in more gentle self-scratching after correct responses, possibly indicating positive emotions.
Simple Summary Self-directed behaviours (SDBs), such as self-scratching or self-touching, are commonly used as indicators of stress or poor welfare in animals. However, whether these behaviours truly reflect stress may depend on individual behaviour, species, context, and to which side of the body they are directed. Namely, one idea is that negative emotions are processed more frequently in the right brain, and because these nerves end in the opposite side, the following sensation is experienced in the left side of the body. Not much is known about the reliability of SDBs as indicators of stress in bonobos. Therefore, we investigated the production and asymmetry of SDBs in bonobos whilst they completed two cognitive touchscreen tasks. The most common SDB was nose wiping, followed by gentle self-scratching, then rough self-scratching. When the bonobos made incorrect responses, due to their unsuccessful experience resulting in expressions of frustration, they showed more nose wiping and rough self-scratching. Additionally, rough self-scratching was more directed to the left side of the body, suggesting a link to negative emotions. Interestingly, in one of the tasks, the bonobos gently self-scratched more frequently when they gave correct responses, possibly indicating positive emotions. These results increase our understanding of SDBs as indicators of emotion in bonobos. Self-directed behaviours (SDBs) are widely used as markers of emotional arousal in primates, and are commonly linked to negative arousal, or are used as indicators of stress or poor welfare. However, recent studies suggest that not all SDBs have the same function. Moreover, lateralisation in the production of these behaviours has been suggested to be associated with emotional processing. Hence, a better understanding of the production and the asymmetry of these displacement behaviours is needed in a wider range of species in order to confirm their reliability as indicators of emotional arousal. In the current study, we experimentally evaluated the production and asymmetry of SDBs in zoo-housed bonobos during two cognitive touchscreen tasks. Overall, nose wipes were most commonly observed, followed by gentle self-scratches, and rough self-scratches. The rates of nose wipes and rough self-scratches increased with incorrect responses, suggesting that these behaviours indicate arousal and possibly frustration. Rough self-scratching was additionally more directed towards the left hemispace after incorrect responses. In contrast, gentle self-scratching increased after correct responses in one study, possibly linking it with positive arousal. We also tested if left-handed bonobos showed greater behavioural reactivity towards incorrect responses, but found no evidence to confirm this hypothesis. Our results shed light on potential different mechanisms behind separate SDBs. We therefore provide nuance to the use of SDBs as indicator of emotional arousal in bonobos.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据