Understanding and Assessing Emotions in Marine Mammals Under Professional Care

In the last 30 years, concerns about animal emotions have emerged from the general public but also from animal professionals and scientists. Animals are now considered as sentient beings, capable of experiencing emotions such as fear or pleasure. Understanding animals’ emotions is complex and important if we want to guarantee them the best care, management, and welfare. The main objectives of the paper are, first, to give a brief overview of various and contemporary assessments of emotions in animals, then to focus on particular zoo animals, that is, marine mammals, since they have drawn a lot of attention lately in regards of their life under professional care. We discuss here 1 approach to monitor their emotions by examining their laterality to finally conclude the importance of understanding animal emotion from a holistic welfare approach.

Decreased Key Pecking in Response to Reward Uncertainty and Surprising Delay Extension in Pigeons

The Pavlovian autoshaping paradigm has often been used to assess the behavioral effects of reward omission on behavior. We trained pigeons to receive a food reward (unconditioned stimulus or UCS) following illumination of a response key (conditioned stimulus or CS). In Experiment 1, one group of pigeons was trained with two 100% predictive CS-UCS associations (reward certainty) and another group with two 25% predictive CS-UCS associations (reward uncertainty) for 12 sessions. In both groups, the two CS durations were 8 s. Then, in each group, the duration of one CS remained unchanged and that of the other CS was suddenly extended from 8 to 24 s for 6 sessions. In Experiment 2, some experienced individuals (from Experiment 1) and naïve individuals formed two groups trained with a 24-s CS throughout for 18 sessions. Our results show that pigeons (a) pecked less at the uncertain than the certain CS, (b) decreased and then increased CS-pecking after extending CS duration, especially in the certainty condition, (c) were unresponsive to the 24-s CS in the absence of previous experience, and (d) decreased their response rate close to the end of a trial irrespective of the reinforcement condition, CS duration, and amount of training. These results are discussed in relation to several theoretical frameworks.

Workshop Effectiveness on Content Knowledge of Behavioral Observation Techniques in an Applied Animal Behavior Context

Comparative psychology has a long history of investigating topics that promote comparisons across disciplines, constructs, and species. One critical component of comparative analyses is to select the best data collection technique. Unfortunately, these observational skills are not always taught to individuals who need them the most, animal care professionals. To demonstrate the applicability of appropriate data collection techniques to this applied discipline, we conducted a multi-day workshop that provided attendees training and practice with several data collection techniques that could be used to evaluate animal behavior in both spontaneous and enrichment-provided settings. The program included (1) a presentation on different data collection techniques and the types of questions each technique can address, (2) two 20-minute sessions of observation practice at two different facilities, (3) a final summary presentation of the data collected, and (4) pre- and post-surveys conducted immediately before and at the end of the workshop. Out of 177 survey respondents, almost a third reported using behavioral data collection to manage animal behavior prior to the workshop. More than 90% of the respondents had heard of behavioral ethograms and 68% of the respondents had used one previously. Many of the respondents reported familiarity with different observation techniques. Eighty-two individuals completed the majority of the survey with 81% expressing satisfaction with the initial workshop presentation. Respondents completing both surveys showed significant improvement in their knowledge of behavioral data collection techniques. Ultimately, the workshop introduced and clarified behavioral observation techniques and their applications in a variety of contexts. Respondents indicated that they could and would utilize knowledge gained from the workshop at their own facilities.

Behavioral and Personality Effects ona Cooperative Task for Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Dyads

Social species can depend on each other for survival, helping in rearing of young, predator defense, and foraging. Personality dynamics between individuals may influence cooperative behaviors. Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) live in social communities and cooperate with other conspecifics to achieve goals both in the wild and in human care. We investigated the role that personality plays in the willingness of dolphins to work together. We tested five bottlenose dolphin pairs at the Roatan Institute for Marine Sciences, Honduras, with an apparatus previously used to experimentally test dolphin cooperation. Personality profiles of each dolphin were created using surveys completed by the caretakers, in particular noting two different categories of interactions: dolphin to dolphin and dolphin to world. We hypothesized that dyadic success in the cooperative task would differ based on specific personality traits of individuals. We also hypothesized that the most successful dyads would show similar types of conspecific sociality and different means of interacting with objects. Although none of the dolphin pairs cooperated to open the apparatus, individual personalities were analyzed in relation to the dolphins’ individual and mutual interactions with the apparatus as well as the pairs’ social behaviors. Playfulness, curiosity, and affiliation as well as agreeableness, and extraversion were positively related to affiliation with the apparatus and each other. These findings suggest that certain aspects of personality are indicative of affiliation or interaction by an individual dolphin. These results could guide future animal research on the relationship between personality, social interactions, and problem-solving.

Comparisons of Animal “Smart” Using The First Four Stages of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity

The Model of Hierarchical Complexity is a behavioral model of development and evolution of the complexity of behavior. It is based on task analysis. Tasks are ordered in terms of their hierarchical complexity, which is an ordinal scale that measures difficulty. The hierarchical difficulty of tasks is categorized as the order of hierarchical complexity. Successful performance on a task is called the behavioral stage. This model can be applied to non-human animals, and humans. Using data from some of the simplest animals and also somewhat more complex ones, this analysis describes the four lowest behavioral stages and illustrate them using the behaviors of a range of simple organisms. For example, Stage 1 tasks, and performance on them, are addressed with automatic unconditioned responses. Behavior at this Stage includes sensing, tropisms, habituation and, other automatic behaviors. Single cell organisms operate at this Stage. Stage 2 tasks include these earlier behaviors, but also include respondent conditioning but not operant conditioning. Animals such as some simple invertebrates have shown respondent conditioning, but not operant conditioning. Stage 3 tasks coordinate three instances of these earlier tasks to make possible operant conditioning. These stage 3 performances are similar to those of some invertebrates and also insects. Stage 4 tasks organisms coordinate 2 or more circular sensory-motor task actions into a superordinate “concept”. This explanation of the early stages of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity may help future research in animal behavior, and comparative psychology.

Tardigrades as a Teaching Model of Learning

This paper describes how to use tardigrades to demonstrate habituation. This experiment is designed for students with any level of experience or training in conditioning live organisms. In this experiment, tardigrades are desensitized to repeated physical touch. Tardigrades are placed under a microscope and poked with a probe until the strength of their response decreases to the point where there is no reaction for 10 consecutive trials. Once the habituation criteria are reached, a new stimulus is presented as a dishabituation control to ensure the subject responds appropriately to the new stimuli. Dishabituation is essential to show that the original response is still present even when a different stimulus is used to evoke that response. This experiment is easy to perform, does not require a lot of time or tools, and the effects are easily observed. We have added discussion questions and future research ideas to aid instructors in the classroom.

Preliminary Study of Discrimination of Human Vocal Commands in Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus divergens)

Walruses seem to use various acoustic signals in social context. So, the auditory faculty is seems to be important for walruses. Can walruses understand another animals' vocal information using auditory sense? This study tested whether a male walrus could discriminate human vocal words and perform different actions corresponding to each one under various conditions. The subject, a male walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) named Pou, was set on the ground, and the experimenter spoke one of the ten words to the subject under the following conditions; (1) The experimenter stood close to the subject and spoke each vocal stimulus wearing a black cloak and goggles so that the experimenter's eye and body movements would not influence the subject's behavior, (2) A wooden board was placed between the experimenter and the subject so that the subject could not see the experimenter, (3) A wooden board was placed between the experimenter and the subject so that the subject could not to see the experimenter, and the experimenter uttered each vocal stimulus through an audio speaker. Under each condition, when the subject performed the correct action corresponding to the vocal stimulus, he was rewarded with a piece of fish. As a result, the subject responded correctly to almost all the human vocal stimuli in every condition, including when the speaker was not visible. This means that he was indeed responding to the vocal words and not the experimenter's cues. This study demonstrated that walruses can hear and identify human vocal words using their auditory sense and can form correspondence between vocal words and their meanings.

In Memoriam

Jesse E. Purdy, a consummate comparative psychologist whose research started with laboratory rats but quickly expanded to include garter snakes, Weddell seals, cuttlefish, killer whales, coho salmon, and numerous more common species of fish, passed away on April 16, 2018, after a long and heroic battle with cancer. Purdy is survived by Karen, his wife of 45 years, and their two children, Kristopher and Matthew. He is also survived by his students and colleagues at Southwestern University who came to share his vision and enthusiasm for a life of inquiry and adventure and will continue to share that with their own students for decades to come.

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole.

Do Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) Form Cognitive Representations of Unconditioned Stimuli?

Previous research looking at expectancy in animals has used various experimental designs focusing on appetitive and avoidance behaviors. In this study, honey bees (Apis mellifera) were tested ina series of three proboscis extension response (PER) experiments to determine to what degree honey bees’ form a cognitive-representation of an unconditioned stimulus (US). Tthe first experiment, bees were presented with either a 2 sec. sucrose US or 2 sec. honey US appetitive reward and the proboscis-extension duration was measured under each scenario. The PER duration was longer for the honey US even though each US was presented for just 2 sec. Honey bees in the second experiment were tested during extinction trials on a conditioned stimulus (CS) of cinnamon or lavender that was paired with either the sucrose US or honey US in the acquisition trials. The proportion of bees showing the PER response to the CS was recorded for each extinction trial for each US scenario, as was the duration of the proboscis extension for each bee. Neither measure differed between the honey US and sucrose US scenarios, In experiment three, bees were presented with a cinnamon or lavender CS paired with either honey US or sucrose US in a set of acquisition trials, but here the US was not given until after the proboscis was retracted. The PER duration after the CS, and again subsequent after the US, were recorded. While the PER duration after the US was longer for honey, the PER duration after the CS did not differ between honey US and sucrose US.