Positive and negative contexts predict duration of pig vocalisations.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 02 2019
14 02 2019
Historique:
received:
12
03
2018
accepted:
19
12
2018
entrez:
16
2
2019
pubmed:
16
2
2019
medline:
12
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Emotions are mental states occurring in response to external and internal stimuli and thus form an integral part of an animal's behaviour. Emotions can be mapped in two dimensions based on their arousal and valence. Whilst good indicators of arousal exist, clear indicators of emotional valence, particularly positive valence, are still rare. However, positively valenced emotions may play a crucial role in social interactions in many species and thus, an understanding of how emotional valence is expressed is needed. Vocalisations are a potential indicator of emotional valence as they can reflect the internal state of the caller. We experimentally manipulated valence, using positive and negative cognitive bias trials, to quantify changes in pig vocalisations. We found that grunts were shorter in positive trials than in negative trials. Interestingly, we did not find differences in the other measured acoustic parameters between the positive and negative contexts as reported in previous studies. These differences in results suggest that acoustic parameters may differ in their sensitivity as indicators of emotial valence. However, it is important to understand how similar contexts are, in terms of their valence, to be able to fully understand how and when acoustic parameters reflect emotional states.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30765788
doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-38514-w
pii: 10.1038/s41598-019-38514-w
pmc: PMC6375976
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2062Subventions
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/K002554/2
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Anim Behav. 2000 Sep;60(3):385-394
pubmed: 11007648
Psychol Rev. 2003 Jan;110(1):145-72
pubmed: 12529060
Nature. 2004 Jan 22;427(6972):312
pubmed: 14737158
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Dec;1000:244-65
pubmed: 14766635
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2005 May;29(3):469-91
pubmed: 15820551
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(2):173-87
pubmed: 16099508
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Mar 7;275(1634):473-81
pubmed: 18077254
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 7;277(1696):2895-904
pubmed: 20685706
J Acoust Soc Am. 2010 Sep;128(3):1322-36
pubmed: 20815467
J Acoust Soc Am. 2011 Feb;129(2):1059-66
pubmed: 21361461
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Oct 22;278(1721):3129-34
pubmed: 21389025
Curr Biol. 2011 Jun 21;21(12):1070-3
pubmed: 21636277
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013 Jun;23(3):310-7
pubmed: 23375168
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 13;8(8):e71841
pubmed: 23967251
Cortex. 2014 Oct;59:185-93
pubmed: 24698794
Curr Biol. 2015 Mar 2;25(5):601-5
pubmed: 25683806
J Comp Psychol. 2015 May;129(2):121-31
pubmed: 25798794
Sci Rep. 2015 Apr 21;4:9989
pubmed: 25897781
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 08;10(7):e0130718
pubmed: 26154309
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 05;10(8):e0133408
pubmed: 26244335
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0135414
pubmed: 26274816
Cogn Emot. 2017 Jan;31(1):47-56
pubmed: 26308096
Physiol Behav. 2016 Apr 1;157:116-24
pubmed: 26850291
J Exp Biol. 2016 Jun 15;219(Pt 12):1913-21
pubmed: 27059064
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 28;11(4):e0152920
pubmed: 27124485
Front Behav Neurosci. 2016 Jun 09;10:119
pubmed: 27375454
R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Jun 29;3(6):160178
pubmed: 27429775
Science. 2016 Sep 30;353(6307):1529-1531
pubmed: 27708101
Biol Lett. 2016 Nov;12(11):
pubmed: 27852940
Front Zool. 2017 Feb 11;14:8
pubmed: 28203263
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Jul 26;284(1859):
pubmed: 28747478
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 18;7(1):8779
pubmed: 28821880
Curr Zool. 2017 Aug;63(4):445-456
pubmed: 29492004
Animals (Basel). 2018 Jun 05;8(6):null
pubmed: 29874830
Z Tierpsychol. 1972 Aug;31(2):171-222
pubmed: 4674022