Evidence mapPaperPMID 31333910Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

An attention bias test to assess anxiety states in laying hens.

Dana L M Campbell, Peta S Taylor, Carlos E Hernandez, Mairi Stewart, Sue Belson, Caroline Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Behaviours of farmed saltwater crocodiles (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Clicker Training as an Applied Refinement Measure in Chickens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dana L M CampbellAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Peta S TaylorSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Carlos E HernandezAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Mairi StewartAgResearch, Ruakura Research Centre, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Sue BelsonAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Caroline LeeAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fear is a response to a known threat, anxiety is a response to a perceived threat. Both of these affective states can be detrimental to animal welfare in modern housing environments. In comparison to the well-validated tests for assessing fear in laying hens, tests for measuring anxiety are less developed. Perception of a threat can result in an attention bias that may indicate anxious affective states in individual hens following playback of an alarm call. In Experiment 1, an attention bias test was applied to hens that differed in their range access to show that hens that never ranged were more vigilant (stretching of the neck and looking around:

Indexed as

Affective stateAnxietyAnxiogenic drugCognitive biasFearm-CPPThreat perceptionVigilance

Identifiers

PMID31333910
PMCPMC6626526

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.