4.4 Article

Emotion Evaluation and Response Slowing in a Non-Human Primate: New Directions for Cognitive Bias Measures of Animal Emotion?

期刊

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/bs6010002

关键词

animal welfare; appraisal theory; attention bias; cognitive bias; emotion evaluation; emotional stroop; freeze; primate; response slowing; rhesus macaque

资金

  1. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs) [NC/L000539/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research [NC/L000539/1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The cognitive bias model of animal welfare assessment is informed by studies with humans demonstrating that the interaction between emotion and cognition can be detected using laboratory tasks. A limitation of cognitive bias tasks is the amount of training required by animals prior to testing. A potential solution is to use biologically relevant stimuli that trigger innate emotional responses. Here; we develop a new method to assess emotion in rhesus macaques; informed by paradigms used with humans: emotional Stroop; visual cueing and; in particular; response slowing. In humans; performance on a simple cognitive task can become impaired when emotional distractor content is displayed. Importantly; responses become slower in anxious individuals in the presence of mild threat; a pattern not seen in non-anxious individuals; who are able to effectively process and disengage from the distractor. Here; we present a proof-of-concept study; demonstrating that rhesus macaques show slowing of responses in a simple touch-screen task when emotional content is introduced; but only when they had recently experienced a presumably stressful veterinary inspection. Our results indicate the presence of a subtle cognitive freeze response; the measurement of which may provide a means of identifying negative shifts in emotion in animals.

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

4.4
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