↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
261 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Making Decisions under Ambiguity: Judgment Bias Tasks for Assessing Emotional State in Animals
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanne Roelofs, Hetty Boleij, Rebecca E. Nordquist, Franz Josef van der Staay

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 257 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 19%
Student > Bachelor 45 17%
Student > Master 40 15%
Researcher 33 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 3%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 59 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 94 36%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 24 9%
Psychology 22 8%
Neuroscience 15 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 22 8%
Unknown 77 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,915,397
of 24,138,997 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#315
of 3,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,988
of 348,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#3
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,138,997 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.