The effects of metabolic cage housing and sex on cognitive bias expression in rats

Are lateralized and bold fish optimistic or pessimistic?

Cognitive bias is defined as the influence of emotions on cognitive processes. The concept of the cognitive judgement bias has its origins in human psychology but has been applied to animals over the past 2 decades. In this study we were interested in determining if laterality and personality traits, which are known to influence learning style, might also be correlated with a cognitive bias in the three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). We used the judgement bias test with the go/no-go procedure where fish were first trained to discriminate between a black and white card and, after reaching a minimum learning criterion, tested their response to an ambiguous card (grey). Optimistic subjects were expected to have a high expectation of reward associated with an ambiguous stimulus, whereas pessimistic subjects a high expectation of non-reward. We used an emergence and a mirror test to quantify boldness and laterality, respectively. We hypothesised that male, bolder and more strongly lateralized fish would be more optimistic than female, shy and less strongly lateralised fish. We found that males and more strongly lateralized fish were more optimistic than females and less strongly lateralized fish. In addition, bold males were more optimistic than shy males as we predicted, but females showed the opposite pattern. Finally, fish trained on the black colour card learned the training task faster than those trained on a white card. Our results indicate that both laterality and personality traits are linked to animals' internal states (pessimistic or optimistic outlooks) which likely has broad implications for understanding animal behaviour particularly in a welfare context.

Physiologic Effects of Housing Rats in Metabolic Cages

Currently, metabolic cages (MC) are the only way to achieve serial sampling of urine and feces in rodents. However, the use of this caging creates a dramatic change from an animal's usual microenvironment. Here we sought to examine the effect of MC on physiologic parameters that are stress-responsive in rats. We surgically implanted 8 male Wistar rats (weight, 150 to 175 g) with telemetric transmitters and allowed them to recover for at least 2 wk. At the beginning of the study, the rats were moved to conventional open-top cages, and telemetry recording was initiated. After 24 h, the rats were moved to MC or to another conventional cage and the recording continued for another 24 h. Finally, the rats were returned to their home cages, and telemetry recording was performed for a final 24 h. After 10 days, this process was then repeated, with MC and conventional assignments switched. During the 78-h monitoring period, we recorded heart rate, arterial blood pressure, locomotor activity, body weight, and food and water consumption. Heart rate and arterial blood pressure showed transient but significant changes. Locomotor activity during the dark phase was greatly decreased in MC compared with conventional cages, perhaps due to space constraints. In addition, when the rats were housed in MC, they showed a small but significant weight loss. Food consumption did not differ between housing environments, but water consumption was lower when rats were in MC. In conclusion, the housing of rats in MC for 24 h can elicit mild and reversible cardiovascular changes. This finding is consistent with European Directive 2010/63/EU, which considers short-term (less than 24 h) restraint in MC a procedure of mild severity.

The Impact of Social and Behavioral Factors on Reproducibility in Terrestrial Vertebrate Models

The use of animal models remains critical in preclinical and translational research. The reliability of the animal models and aspects of their validity is likely key to effective translation of findings to medicine. However, despite considerable uniformity in animal models brought about by control of genetics, there remain a number of social as well as innate and acquired behavioral characteristics of laboratory animals that may impact on research outcomes. These include the effects of strain and genetics, age and development, sex, personality and affective states, and social factors largely brought about by housing and husbandry. In addition, aspects of the testing environment may also influence research findings. A number of considerations resulting from the animals' innate and acquired behavioral characteristics as well as their social structures are described. Suggestions for minimizing the impact of these factors on research are provided.

Animal affect and decision-making

The scientific study of animal affect (emotion) is an area of growing interest. Whilst research on mechanism and causation has predominated, the study of function is less advanced. This is not due to a lack of hypotheses; in both humans and animals, affective states are frequently proposed to play a pivotal role in coordinating adaptive responses and decisions. However, exactly how they might do this (what processes might implement this function) is often left rather vague. Here we propose a framework for integrating animal affect and decision-making that is couched in modern decision theory and employs an operational definition that aligns with dimensional concepts of core affect and renders animal affect empirically tractable. We develop a model of how core affect, including short-term (emotion-like) and longer-term (mood-like) states, influence decision-making via processes that we label affective options, affective predictions, and affective outcomes and which correspond to similar concepts in schema of the links between human emotion and decision-making. Our framework is generalisable across species and generates questions for future research.

Pain-Induced Pessimism and Anhedonia: Evidence From a Novel Probability-Based Judgment Bias Test

Judgment bias tests (JBTs) use responses to ambiguous stimuli to infer emotional states in animals. However, with repeated testing, animals can learn to recognize the previously ambiguous stimuli rendering the test less effective. We describe a novel approach to this problem. Calves (n = 9) were trained in a spatial discrimination task to associate five locations with a specific probability of reward/punishment (Positive: 100%/0%; Near-Positive: 75%/25%; Middle: 50%/50%; Near-Negative: 25%/75%; Negative: 0%/100%). As predicted, calves showed increased latencies to touch locations that had higher probabilities of punishment and lower probabilities of reward. To validate our methodology for detecting mood changes, we followed calves in the hours after routine hot-iron disbudding, a time when animals were likely experiencing post-operative inflammatory pain. At 6 h after disbudding, when inflammatory pain was likely to peak, calves expressed increased approach latencies to the Positive, Near-Positive and Middle locations. These results suggest that calves perceived the value of the reward as being lower (i.e., anhedonia) or had lower expectations of positive outcomes (i.e., pessimism). When re-tested at 22 and 70 h after disbudding, we found no evidence of pessimism or anhedonia (i.e., latencies had returned to baseline). We conclude that our probability-based judgment bias task can detect pain-induced mood changes.

A Judgement Bias Test to Assess Affective State and Potential Therapeutics in a Rat Model of Chemotherapy-Induced Mucositis

Chemotherapy-induced mucositis is an extremely painful condition that occurs in 40-60% of patients undergoing chemotherapy. As mucositis currently has no effective treatment, and due to the self-limiting nature of the condition, the major treatment aims are to manage symptoms and limit pain with significance placed on improving patient quality of life. Rodent models are frequently used in mucositis research. These investigations typically assess pathological outcomes, yet fail to include a measure of affective state; the key therapeutic goal. Assessment of cognitive biases is a novel approach to determining the affective state of animals. Consequently, this study aimed to validate a cognitive bias test through a judgement bias paradigm to measure affective state in a rat model of chemotherapy-induced intestinal mucositis. Rats with intestinal mucositis demonstrated a negative affective state, which was partially ameliorated by analgesic administration, whilst healthy rats showed an optimistic response. This study concluded that the judgement bias test was able to evaluate the emotional state of rats with chemotherapy-induced mucositis. These findings provide a foundation for future refinement to the experimental design associated with the animal model that will expedite successful transitioning of novel therapeutics to clinical practice, and also improve humane endpoint implementation.

Oestrous phase cyclicity influences judgment biasing in rats

The identification of cognitive bias has become an important measure of animal welfare. Negative cognitive biases develop from a tendency for animals to process novel information pessimistically. Judgment-bias testing is the commonplace methodology to detect cognitive biases. However, concerns with these methods have been frequently-reported; one of which being the discrepancy between male and female cognitive expression. The current study assessed the factors of social status and oestrus, to investigate whether oestrous cycle rotation, or subordination stress encouraged an increase in pessimistic responses. Female Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 24) were trained on an active-choice judgment bias paradigm. Responses to the ambiguous probe were recorded as optimistic or pessimistic. Oestrous phase was determined by assessing vaginal cytology in stained vaginal cell smears. Rats in the dioestrous phase and those rats considered to be subordinate demonstrated an increased percentage of pessimistic responses. However, no interaction between these factors was observed. This suggests that oestrous cyclicity can influence the judgment biases of female animals; a previously unreported finding. On this basis, researchers should be encouraged to account for both oestrous phase cyclicity and social status as an additional fixed effect in study design.

Mood As Cumulative Expectation Mismatch: A Test of Theory Based on Data from Non-verbal Cognitive Bias Tests

Affective states are known to influence behavior and cognitive processes. To assess mood (moderately long-term affective states), the cognitive judgment bias test was developed and has been widely used in various animal species. However, little is known about how mood changes, how mood can be experimentally manipulated, and how mood then feeds back into cognitive judgment. A recent theory argues that mood reflects the cumulative impact of differences between obtained outcomes and expectations. Here expectations refer to an established context. Situations in which an established context fails to match an outcome are then perceived as mismatches of expectation and outcome. We take advantage of the large number of studies published on non-verbal cognitive bias tests in recent years (95 studies with a total of 162 independent tests) to test whether cumulative mismatch could indeed have led to the observed mood changes. Based on a criteria list, we assessed whether mismatch had occurred with the experimental procedure used to induce mood (mood induction mismatch), or in the context of the non-verbal cognitive bias procedure (testing mismatch). For the mood induction mismatch, we scored the mismatch between the subjects’ potential expectations and the manipulations conducted for inducing mood whereas, for the testing mismatch, we scored mismatches that may have occurred during the actual testing. We then investigated whether these two types of mismatch can predict the actual outcome of the cognitive bias study. The present evaluation shows that mood induction mismatch cannot well predict the success of a cognitive bias test. On the other hand, testing mismatch can modulate or even inverse the expected outcome. We think, cognitive bias studies should more specifically aim at creating expectation mismatch while inducing mood states to test the cumulative mismatch theory more properly. Furthermore, testing mismatch should be avoided as much as possible because it can reverse the affective state of animals as measured in a cognitive judgment bias paradigm.

Making Decisions under Ambiguity: Judgment Bias Tasks for Assessing Emotional State in Animals

Judgment bias tasks (JBTs) are considered as a family of promising tools in the assessment of emotional states of animals. JBTs provide a cognitive measure of optimism and/or pessimism by recording behavioral responses to ambiguous stimuli. For instance, a negative emotional state is expected to produce a negative or pessimistic judgment of an ambiguous stimulus, whereas a positive emotional state produces a positive or optimistic judgment of the same ambiguous stimulus. Measuring an animal's emotional state or mood is relevant in both animal welfare research and biomedical research. This is reflected in the increasing use of JBTs in both research areas. We discuss the different implementations of JBTs with animals, with a focus on their potential as an accurate measure of emotional state. JBTs have been successfully applied to a very broad range of species, using many different types of testing equipment and experimental protocols. However, further validation of this test is deemed necessary. For example, the often extensive training period required for successful judgment bias testing remains a possible factor confounding results. Also, the issue of ambiguous stimuli losing their ambiguity with repeated testing requires additional attention. Possible improvements are suggested to further develop the JBTs in both animal welfare and biomedical research.