Classification of pig calls produced from birth to slaughter according to their emotional valence and context of production.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 03 2022
07 03 2022
Historique:
received:
27
07
2021
accepted:
09
02
2022
entrez:
8
3
2022
pubmed:
9
3
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vocal expression of emotions has been observed across species and could provide a non-invasive and reliable means to assess animal emotions. We investigated if pig vocal indicators of emotions revealed in previous studies are valid across call types and contexts, and could potentially be used to develop an automated emotion monitoring tool. We performed an analysis of an extensive and unique dataset of low (LF) and high frequency (HF) calls emitted by pigs across numerous commercial contexts from birth to slaughter (7414 calls from 411 pigs). Our results revealed that the valence attributed to the contexts of production (positive versus negative) affected all investigated parameters in both LF and HF. Similarly, the context category affected all parameters. We then tested two different automated methods for call classification; a neural network revealed much higher classification accuracy compared to a permuted discriminant function analysis (pDFA), both for the valence (neural network: 91.5%; pDFA analysis weighted average across LF and HF (cross-classified): 61.7% with a chance level at 50.5%) and context (neural network: 81.5%; pDFA analysis weighted average across LF and HF (cross-classified): 19.4% with a chance level at 14.3%). These results suggest that an automated recognition system can be developed to monitor pig welfare on-farm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35256620
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-07174-8
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-07174-8
pmc: PMC8901661
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3409Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 28;10(1):18496
pubmed: 33116261
Physiol Behav. 2016 Apr 1;157:116-24
pubmed: 26850291
Sci Rep. 2017 Aug 18;7(1):8779
pubmed: 28821880
J R Soc Interface. 2019 Jun 28;16(155):20190225
pubmed: 31213168
Animals (Basel). 2018 Jun 05;8(6):
pubmed: 29874830
Rev Sci Tech. 2014 Apr;33(1):103-10
pubmed: 25000782
Ethology. 2016 Apr;122(4):329-342
pubmed: 27065507
Animal. 2020 Jan;14(1):198-205
pubmed: 31368424
J Acoust Soc Am. 2009 Nov;126(5):2721-32
pubmed: 19894848
Front Vet Sci. 2021 May 14;8:660565
pubmed: 34055949
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Feb 28;285(1873):
pubmed: 29491174
Neural Netw. 2018 Oct;106:249-259
pubmed: 30092410
Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Oct 7;277(1696):2895-904
pubmed: 20685706
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 13;8(8):e71841
pubmed: 23967251
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 14;9(1):2062
pubmed: 30765788
J Acoust Soc Am. 2019 May;145(5):2895
pubmed: 31153321
J R Soc Interface. 2020 Jun;17(167):20200086
pubmed: 32517633
J Acoust Soc Am. 2021 May;149(5):3635
pubmed: 34241118
Physiol Behav. 2017 Nov 1;181:117-126
pubmed: 28912089
Front Vet Sci. 2020 Nov 27;7:577433
pubmed: 33330698
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0135414
pubmed: 26274816
Emotion. 2001 Sep;1(3):276-98
pubmed: 12934687