4.5 Article

Stereotypic head twirls, but not pacing, are related to a 'pessimistic'-like judgment bias among captive tufted capuchins (Cebus apella)

期刊

ANIMAL COGNITION
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 689-698

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10071-012-0497-7

关键词

Stereotypy; Cognitive-bias; Negative affect; Primate welfare

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z99 HD999999] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abnormal stereotypic behaviour is widespread among captive non-human primates and is generally associated with jeopardized well-being. However, attributing the same significance to all of these repetitive, unvarying and apparently functionless behaviours may be misleading, as some behaviours may be better indicators of stress than others. Previous studies have demonstrated that the affective state of the individual can be inferred from its bias in appraising neutral stimuli in its environment. Therefore, in the present study, in order to assess the emotional state of stereotyping individuals, 16 captive tufted capuchins (Cebus apella) were tested on a judgment bias paradigm and their faecal corticoid levels were measured in order to assess the intensity of the emotional state. Capuchins with higher levels of stereotypic head twirls exhibited a negative bias while judging ambiguous stimuli and had higher levels of faecal corticoids compared to subjects with lower levels of head twirls. Levels of stereotypic pacing, however, were not correlated with the monkeys' emotional state. This study is the first to reveal a positive correlation between levels of stereotypic behaviour and a 'pessimistic'-like judgment bias in a non-human primate by employing a recently developed cognitive approach. Combining cognitive tests that evaluate the animals' affective valence (positive or negative) with hormonal measurements that provide information on the strength of the emotional state conduces to a better understanding of the animals' affective state and therefore to their well-being.

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

4.5
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