IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0107794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Canine Sense and Sensibility: Tipping Points and Response Latency Variability as an Optimism Index in a Canine Judgement Bias Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa J Starling
  • Nicholas Branson
  • Denis Cody
  • Timothy R Starling
  • Paul D McGreevy

Abstract

Recent advances in animal welfare science used judgement bias, a type of cognitive bias, as a means to objectively measure an animal's affective state. It is postulated that animals showing heightened expectation of positive outcomes may be categorised optimistic, while those showing heightened expectations of negative outcomes may be considered pessimistic. This study pioneers the use of a portable, automated apparatus to train and test the judgement bias of dogs. Dogs were trained in a discrimination task in which they learned to touch a target after a tone associated with a lactose-free milk reward and abstain from touching the target after a tone associated with water. Their judgement bias was then probed by presenting tones between those learned in the discrimination task and measuring their latency to respond by touching the target. A Cox's Proportional Hazards model was used to analyse censored response latency data. Dog and Cue both had a highly significant effect on latency and risk of touching a target. This indicates that judgement bias both exists in dogs and differs between dogs. Test number also had a significant effect, indicating that dogs were less likely to touch the target over successive tests. Detailed examination of the response latencies revealed tipping points where average latency increased by 100% or more, giving an indication of where dogs began to treat ambiguous cues as predicting more negative outcomes than positive ones. Variability scores were calculated to provide an index of optimism using average latency and standard deviation at cues after the tipping point. The use of a mathematical approach to assessing judgement bias data in animal studies offers a more detailed interpretation than traditional statistical analyses. This study provides proof of concept for the use of an automated apparatus for measuring cognitive bias in dogs.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa J Starling & Nicholas Branson & Denis Cody & Timothy R Starling & Paul D McGreevy, 2014. "Canine Sense and Sensibility: Tipping Points and Response Latency Variability as an Optimism Index in a Canine Judgement Bias Assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-15, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0107794
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107794
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107794&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0107794?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emma J. Harding & Elizabeth S. Paul & Michael Mendl, 2004. "Cognitive bias and affective state," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 312-312, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neil Garrett & Tali Sharot, 2014. "How Robust Is the Optimistic Update Bias for Estimating Self-Risk and Population Base Rates?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.
    2. Claire A Hales & Emma S J Robinson & Conor J Houghton, 2016. "Diffusion Modelling Reveals the Decision Making Processes Underlying Negative Judgement Bias in Rats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, March.
    3. Vanessa Kloke & Rebecca S Schreiber & Carina Bodden & Julian Möllers & Hanna Ruhmann & Sylvia Kaiser & Klaus-Peter Lesch & Norbert Sachser & Lars Lewejohann, 2014. "Hope for the Best or Prepare for the Worst? Towards a Spatial Cognitive Bias Test for Mice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-12, August.
    4. Naïma Kasbaoui & Jonathan Cooper & Daniel S Mills & Oliver Burman, 2016. "Effects of Long-Term Exposure to an Electronic Containment System on the Behaviour and Welfare of Domestic Cats," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Alessandro V. M. Oliveira & Bruno F. Oliveira & Moises D. Vassallo, 2024. "Airport service quality perception and flight delays: examining the influence of psychosituational latent traits of respondents in passenger satisfaction surveys," Papers 2401.02139, arXiv.org.
    6. Rafal Rygula & Helena Pluta & Piotr Popik, 2012. "Laughing Rats Are Optimistic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-6, December.
    7. Sicong Liu & Qingcheng Fan & Shanghao Liu & Chunjiang Zhao, 2022. "DepthFormer: A High-Resolution Depth-Wise Transformer for Animal Pose Estimation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-13, August.
    8. Marko Bračić & Lena Bohn & Viktoria Siewert & Vanessa T von Kortzfleisch & Holger Schielzeth & Sylvia Kaiser & Norbert Sachser & S Helene Richter, 2022. "Once an optimist, always an optimist? Studying cognitive judgment bias in mice," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 33(4), pages 775-788.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0107794. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.