Developmental history and stress responsiveness are related to response inhibition, but not judgement bias, in a cohort of European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)

Negative expectations and vulnerability to stressors in animals

Humans express stable differences in pessimism that render some individuals more vulnerable to stressors and mood disorders. We explored whether non-human animals express stable individual differences in expectations (assessed via judgment bias tests) and whether these differences relate to susceptibility to stressors. Judgment bias tests do not distinguish pessimism from sensitivity to reinforcers; negative expectations are likely driven by a combination of these two elements. The available evidence suggests that animals express stable individual differences in expectations such that some persistently perceive ambiguous situations in a more negative way. A lack of research prevents drawing firm conclusions on how negative expectations affect responses to stressors, but current evidence suggests a link between negative expectations and the adoption of avoidance coping strategies, stronger responses to uncontrollable stressors and risk of mood-related disorders. We explore implications for animals living in captivity and for research using animals as models for human disorders.

Short telomeres drive pessimistic judgement bias in zebrafish

The role of telomerase reverse transcriptase has been widely investigated in the contexts of ageing and age-related diseases. Interestingly, decreased telomerase activities (and accelerated telomere shortening) have also been reported in patients with emotion-related disorders, opening the possibility for subjective appraisal of stressful stimuli playing a key role in stress-driven telomere shortening. In fact, patients showing a pessimistic judgement bias have shorter telomeres. However, in humans the evidence for this is correlational and the causal directionality between pessimism and telomere shortening has not been established experimentally yet. We have developed and validated a judgement bias experimental paradigm to measure subjective evaluations of ambiguous stimuli in zebrafish. This behavioural assay allows classification of individuals in an optimistic-pessimistic dimension (i.e. from individuals that consistently evaluate ambiguous stimuli as negative to others that perceive them as positive). Using this behavioural paradigm we found that telomerase-deficient zebrafish (tert-/-) were more pessimistic in response to ambiguous stimuli than wild-type zebrafish. The fact that individuals with constitutive shorter telomeres have pessimistic behaviours demonstrates for the first time in a vertebrate model a genetic basis of judgement bias.

Use of cognitive bias as a welfare tool in poultry

In human psychology, the link between cognition and emotions is broadly accepted. However, the idea of using the interaction between cognition and emotions as a tool for a better understanding of animal emotions or for welfare assessment is relatively new. The first avian species used in cognitive bias tests was the European starling followed by the domestic chicken and other species. The most frequently used paradigm is the affect-induced judgment bias. There are many variations of the judgment bias tests in birds. The test itself is preceded by discrimination training. Discrimination tasks vary from visual cue discrimination, discrimination of time intervals to spatial location discrimination. During the discrimination training, birds flip or do not flip the lids of the food dishes, and their latency to approach the cues in a straight alley maze, in a two-choice arena, or different locations in spatial judgment task arena are measured. Alternately, the birds fulfill operant tasks in a Skinner box. Before or after the discrimination training phase, birds are subjected to manipulations that are hypothesized to induce positive or negative emotional states. In the last stage, birds are subjected to judgment bias tests. The assumption is that animals in a negative affective state would more likely respond to ambiguous cues, as if they predict the negative event, than animals in a more positive state. However, the results of some avian studies are inconsistent, particularly those studying the effect of environmental enrichment. In starlings, each of the three studies has supplied conflicting results. In poultry, none of the four studies demonstrated a positive effect of environmental enrichment on emotional states. Only the study using unpredictable stressors in combination with environmental complexity showed that animals kept in a more complex environment are more optimistic. Manipulation of the social environment seems to be more effective in judgment bias induction. Conflicting results could be attributable to the design of the tests, the manner of affect induction, or the data analysis. Further optimization and validation of avian cognitive bias tests could help to avoid problems such as the loss of ambiguity. New methods of attention and memory bias testing are promising. However, regardless of the abovementioned complications, a cognitive bias paradigm is a valuable tool, which can help us better understand avian emotions and assess poultry welfare.