ArticlePeerJ2020
In or out: Response slowing across housing conditions as a measure of affect in three Western lowland gorillas (
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing for the "Blues": Using the Modified Emotional Stroop Task to Assess the Emotional Response of Gorillas.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- A Comparative Perspective on Three Primate Species' Responses to a Pictorial Emotional Stroop Task.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIndividuals experiencing negative affect have shown response slowing, a longer latency to respond in relation to baseline, when presented with aversive stimuli. We assessed response slowing in three male gorillas housed in a bachelor group as a function of daytime and nighttime housing arrangements.
methodsIn both experiments, three gorillas were rewarded for touching a single image (baseline, non-threatening gorilla or threatening gorilla) on a touchscreen. In Experiment One, they completed 48 50-trial sessions across combinations of three nested daytime and three nighttime conditions. In Experiment Two, they completed eight 50-trial sessions with novel stimuli across two daytime conditions, which were nested within two nighttime conditions. Housing conditions represented different amounts of space and degree of choice. We predicted that the gorillas would show response slowing to threatening stimuli when space and choice were restricted.
resultsWe did not observe response slowing in Experiment One, although daytime and nighttime conditions interacted to predict response latencies. The gorillas responded more slowly when they had access to indoors and outdoors overnight compared to when they were in their stalls or together in an indoor habitat, but only if they had been given access to both indoors and outdoors or locked in the indoor habitat the day before. In Experiment Two, the gorillas did show response slowing to threatening stimuli, but this pattern did not interact with housing conditions. Our results, although limited by a small sample, are somewhat consistent with those of a previous study that did not find significant response slowing for apes as a function of aversive testing conditions, although the procedure has been effective in identifying dysregulated fear (high fear in low threat conditions) in macaques. The utility of this paradigm for testing affect in apes awaits further evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.