Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Nov 3;12(21):3014.
doi: 10.3390/ani12213014.

Limitations of Spatial Judgment Bias Test Application in Horses (Equus ferus caballus)

Giovanna Marliani  1 , Irene Vannucchi  1 , Irini Kiumurgis  1 , Pier Attilio Accorsi  1
Affiliations

Limitations of Spatial Judgment Bias Test Application in Horses (Equus ferus caballus)

Giovanna Marliani et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

Affective states are of increasing interest in the assessment of animal welfare. This research aimed to evaluate the possible limitations in the application of a spatial judgment bias test (JBT) in horses, considering the influence of stress level, personality traits, and the possible bias due to the test structure itself. The distinction between two positions, one rewarded (Positive) and the other not (Negative), was learned by 10 horses and 4 ponies,. Then, the latency to reach three unrewarded ambiguous positions (Near Positive, Middle, Near Negative) was measured. Furthermore, the validated Equine Behavior Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) was employed to assess personality traits. Fecal and hair cortisol levels were measured through radioimmunoassay (RIA), and the frequency of behavioral stress indicators was recorded. Results showed that horses that had the rewarded position (Positive) on the right approached Near Negative and Middle faster than those that had Positive on the left. Certain personality traits influenced the latency to reach Middle and Near Positive, but chronic stress did not seem to affect horses' judgment bias. This preliminary study highlighted several limitations in the employment of spatial JBT for the assessment of affective state in horses and that personality traits can partially influence the cognitive process. Further research is needed to refine the use of this test in horses, considering the peculiarities both of species and of individuals.

Keywords: E-BARQ; affective state; cortisol; equine; judgment bias test.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The setting of the spatial judgement test. P is the Positive position (bucket with food) and N is the Negative position (empty bucket). The ambiguous positions (empty bucket) are Near Positive (NP), Middle (M), and Near Negative (NN).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Latency in seconds (sec.) to reach the bucket in the five locations. Results refer to the two days of the test. The bar within the box represents the median, the borders of the box are upper and lower quartiles, the bottom and top whiskers signify the lowest and highest cases within 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR), and outliers are shown through black full circles. a, b, and c indicate significant results (p < 0.05).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Fecal cortisol (pg/mg) measured from samples collected every day of the JBT week (N1 = habituation, N2 = training, N3 = resting day, N4 = test1, N5 = test2, N6 = resting day after the last test day, N7= second resting day after the last test day). The bar within the box represents the median, the borders of the box are upper and lower quartiles, the bottom and top whiskers signify the lowest and highest cases within 1.5 times the IQR, and outliers are shown through black full circles.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Cortisol level in horsehair (pg/mg) of each subject considered in the research.
Figure 5
Figure 5
E-BARQ score for each personality trait. The box plots show the median and 25th and 75th percentiles; the whiskers indicate the values within 1.5 times the interquartile range, IQR. The outliers are indicated by the black circles.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Boissy A., Manteuffel G., Jensen M.B., Moe R.O., Spruijt B., Keeling L.J., Winckler C., Forkman B., Dimitrov I., Langbein J., et al. Assessment of Positive Emotions in Animals to Improve Their Welfare. Physiol. Behav. 2007;92:375–397. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.02.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. European Union Treaty of Amsterdam, Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals (P110) [(accessed on 5 March 2022)]. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:11997D/PR....
    1. Mellor D.J., Beausoleil N.J., Littlewood K.E., McLean A.N., McGreevy P.D., Jones B., Wilkins C. The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals. 2020;10:1870. doi: 10.3390/ani10101870. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mendl M., Burman O.H.P., Paul E.S. An Integrative and Functional Framework for the Study of Animal Emotion and Mood. Proc. R. Soc. B. 2010;277:2895–2904. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0303. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Paul E.S., Harding E.J., Mendl M. Measuring Emotional Processes in Animals: The Utility of a Cognitive Approach. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2005;29:469–491. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.01.002. - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.

LinkOut - more resources