Wemelsfelder, F. (1989). Animal Boredom: Do Animals Miss What They Have Never Known?

• Journal List
• Europe PMC Author Manuscripts
• PMC7099939

Anim Welf. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC7099939

EMSID: EMS86022

Does 'playtime' reduce stimulus-seeking and other boredom-like behaviour in laboratory ferrets?

Charlotte C. Burn

¹Beast Welfare Scientific discipline and Ethics, The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, UK

Jade Raffle

¹Animal Welfare Science and Ethics, The Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, UK

Jennifer Thousand. Bizley

²Ear Institute, University Higher London, London, UK

Abstract

Much environmental enrichment for laboratory animals is intended to enhance creature welfare and normalcy by providing stimulation to reduce 'boredom'. Behavioural manifestations of boredom include restless sensation-seeking behaviours combined with indicators of sub-optimal arousal. Here we explored whether these signs could be reduced by extra daily play opportunity in laboratory ferrets. Specifically, we hypothesised that playtime would reduce restlessness, aggression, sensation-seeking and awake drowsiness, even 24h later on in the homecage. Female person ferrets (n = 14) were group housed in enriched multi-level cages. Playtime involved exploring a room containing a ball pool, paper numberless, assurance containing bells, and a familiar interactive human for 1h. This was repeated on three consecutive mornings, and on the fourth morning, homecage behaviour was compared between ferrets who had experienced the playtime handling versus control cagemates who had not. Their investigation of stimuli (positive = mouse odor or brawl; ambiguous = empty bottle or tea-strainer; and negative = peppermint or biting apple tree odour) was also recorded. We so swapped treatments, creating a paired experimental design. Ferrets under control atmospheric condition lay awake with their eyes open up and screeched significantly more than, but slept and sabbatum/stood less, than following playtime. They also contacted negative and cryptic stimuli significantly more under control conditions than they did following playtime; contact with positive stimuli showed no furnishings. Attempts to blind the observer to treatments were unsuccessful, so replication is required, but the findings suggest that playtime may have reduced both sub-optimal arousal and restless sensation seeking behaviour, consistent with reducing colorlessness.

Keywords: Animal welfare, Boredom, Environmental enrichment, Exploration, Ferrets, Laboratory animals

Introduction

Many ecology enrichment (EE) attempts are intended at to the lowest degree partly to relieve boredom, either stated explicitly or implicitly, such as when the aim is to increase 'stimulation', 'exploration' or 'cognitive challenge' (eastward.g. Anderson & Wood 2001; Celli et al. 2003; Wells 2004; Meehan & Mench 2007; Puppe et al. 2007; Langbein et al. 2009). EE has been well defined before, and tin cover any environmental or husbandry modification that increases the welfare or biological performance of a convict animal (e.g. Chamove 1989; Newberry 1995; Patterson-Kane 2001; Swaisgood & Shepherdson 2005). In the case of laboratory animals, EE is additionally important for increasing animal normalcy, to maximise the external validity of research (Bayne & Würbel 2014). The specific aims can vary, such as reducing fright (due east.g. providing secluded shelters) or satisfying species-specific needs (eastward.g. providing perches for arboreal species), only it is those aimed at providing sensory or cognitive stimulation (eastward.yard. novel objects, sensory stimuli, or exploration) that are specially relevant for combating boredom (Meehan & Mench 2007; Manteuffel et al. 2009; Wells 2009; Meagher 2019). Opportunity to play mostly could be effective, as play has been suggested as a machinery for countering boredom (due east.g. Burghardt 1984; Held & Špinka 2011; Burghardt 2014; Ahloy-Dallaire et al. 2018). However, until recently, objective indicators of boredom were lacking, so it was hard to assess whether stimulating EE was ever successful in tackling it.

Colorlessness is a negative emotion, which is caused by monotony that fails to engage attention and to maintain optimal arousal levels (Wemelsfelder 2005; Eastwood et al. 2012; Burn 2017). It is associated with a motivation for nigh anything different or more than arousing than the stimuli available (Mason & Burn 2011; Meagher & Mason 2012; Meagher 2019). The motivation for general stimulation as existence cardinal to objectively indicating boredom was identified and used by Meagher and Mason (2012) who distinguished possible reasons why environmentally unenriched farmed mink were observed to lie awake with their eyes open more than enriched mink (Meagher et al. 2013). They suggested that if lying awake was due to boredom, the mink without EE would voluntarily interact with diverse stimuli ranging from pleasant to unpleasant, whereas this would not exist the instance for the alternative explanations of apathy or anhedonia. Mink lacking EE did indeed interact with ambiguous and negative stimuli more readily than enriched mink did, indicating that they sought general stimulation – even if it was not pleasant – which is consistent with colorlessness. Those results were largely replicated in a follow up study (Meagher et al. 2017).

Motivation for full general stimulation is part of a more general aversion to a monotonous situation, so manifestations of boredom can present as stimulus-seeking (equally in the mink), or every bit restlessness, chance taking, unprovoked assailment, or escape behaviour (Fire 2017). Yet, this set of behaviours is not entirely unique to colorlessness, because some of the manifestations of it could likewise occur in other states, such as excitement, exploration, frustration, pain or playfulness. Therefore, it is the seemingly paradoxical juxtaposition of these highly agile behaviours versus low arousal states, such every bit lying awake and yawning, that seems to characterise boredom (Berlyne 1960; Wemelsfelder 2005; Fahlman et al. 2013). This is because colorlessness seems to occur when stimulation is of insufficient quality to maintain optimal arousal levels, making the animal drowsy merely not tired, and motivating it to raise its arousal levels past any means possible (Burn 2017).

Information technology is these two classes of indicators (drowsiness and arousal-seeking behaviours) that we chose to measure when assessing whether boosted playtime could help reduce potential colorlessness in laboratory ferrets (Mustela putorius furo). Non all low arousal behaviours are relevant to boredom, because unlike types of inactivity can have very different implications for animate being welfare, but lying awake with eyes open is one of the most relevant to boredom (Meagher et al. 2013).

Playtime, in 'playrooms' outside the home surround, has been used every bit putative EE in species including rats (Widman & Rosellini 1990), pigs (Casey et al. 2007), dogs (Adams et al. 2004), cats (Wilson et al. 1965), and primates (reviewed in Rennie & Buchanan-Smith 2006). Playing and exploration opportunities tin can raise cerebral part (Wilson et al. 1965; Pereira et al. 2007) (but come across Bennett et al. 2006) and encourage full general exploration (Widman & Rosellini 1990) over the long term. On the other hand, in primates at least, EE within the homecage appeared more effective in terms of enhancing welfare than were regular playtimes, with primates performing increased abnormal behaviour upon being returned to arid cages after playtimes than without playtimes (reviewed in Rennie & Buchanan-Smith 2006). There could therefore be some concern that playtime benefits are only transient, and that there could even be a negative dissimilarity effect: the playtime could increase homecage restlessness if the animal learns that the homecage is insufficiently stimulating compared with the playroom.

Playtimes have not nonetheless been investigated in terms of their potential to reduce animal boredom specifically. If they are effective in this respect, they should ideally not just reduce boredom during the playtime itself, just besides to some extent dorsum in the homecage, indicating that the playtime has satisfied the motivation for greater stimulation. In the current written report, nosotros therefore aimed to investigate the hypothesis that, if playtime reduces boredom even dorsum in the homecage, it would decrease behaviour indicating both stimulus-seeking and suboptimal arousal. We tested this in laboratory ferrets in their homecages one 24-hour interval after playtime. We used a playtime paradigm designed to offer all types of play: locomotor, social, object, and exploratory play (Burghardt 1984).

Materials and Methods

Animal housing and husbandry

14 adult female person pigmented ferrets were used. They were housed long term to participate in other studies. They had been obtained from Highgate Farms (Uk) from 12-16 weeks old, and weighed between 670 and 1070g (hateful±SD = 891±110g) at the time of testing. Nine of the ferrets were one twelvemonth old, and five were ii-3 years old. For the purposes of other studies (due east.g. Boondocks et al. 2017) unrelated to the electric current paper, the v older ferrets were chronically implanted for bilateral electrophysiological recording from auditory cortex (Warp-16 microdrives (Neuralynx, MT), housing sixteen independently moveable tungsten microelectrodes (WPI Inc., FL)). All animals were also trained on auditory bigotry tasks which required restricted access to h2o in their home cage during testing, but they participated in this written report during their weeks off when they had unrestricted access to water in their dwelling cage; they had a minimum of 65h advertizing lib water before participating.

Ferrets were housed in a room maintained at fifteen-24°C, with artificial lighting switched on according to their winter cycle at viii:00 and off at xviii:00h. All ferrets had access to nutrient (VitalinTM chicken and rice pellets, Grove Pet Foods, Lincoln) and water advertizement libitum. Ferrets were socially housed in multi-tier cages that could be interconnected via tunnels. During the data collection menstruum of this report, ferrets were housed in groups of four in a unmarried multi-level cage (175x90x74cm, four levels accessible via ramps, Tecniplast). Cages were provided with with woodshavings as bedding, paperwool, green plastic tunnels, minor cardboard boxes and large paper bags.

All ferrets were allowed exterior their cages to explore freely in their holding room every day at 12:30h, during muzzle cleaning. During this flow (45-60 mins) they explored the floor of the room and could interact with conspecifics from and in other cages. The ferrets' social groups were mixed and re-formed every calendar week. The ferrets were also regularly handled and stroked past staff members.

This report was ethically canonical by the Clinical Research and Upstanding Review Lath (CRERB) at the Royal Veterinary College, reference number URN 2017 1755-3.

Playtime treatment

For iii consecutive days (Mon-Wednesday) two of the iv ferrets within the experimental cage received 1h of actress playtime. This occurred at 10:00h-11:00h, on the basis of airplane pilot observations that revealed this equally the ferrets' most active daytime period. The playtime treatment involved the ferrets being immune out of their homecage in the holding room with two ferrets from another cage, similar to that occurring during cage-cleaning, merely extra stimuli were provided, such as tunnels and balls (Tabular array i). The experimenter (JR) was as well present to supervise and provide additional voluntary interaction with these ferrets. The remaining ii cagemates stayed inside the cage and acted as controls.

Table 1

Overview of the stimuli available to ferrets during the 1-hour of extra playtime.

Playtime stimuli	Specifications
Rigid Tunnel	SnuggleSafe Way to Go Fun Tunnel 90cm x 15cm
Hard Chocolate-brown Tube Piping	Short Plumbing Pipe
Ball with Bell (x4)	Bong Ball Cat Toys (Aimé) - Pack of iv, 10.7 x 3.6 x fifteen cm
Plastic Ball (x6)	Marshall Pet Products Pop-North-Play Ball Pit Balls
Large Brown Empty Paper Sack	Previously contained ferret dry nutrient (Vitalin pellets)

Each week a dissimilar pair of ferrets was allocated to the playtime treatment, while their cagemates acted as controls. Past the terminate of the viii-week study, all ferrets had experienced both treatments. This created a paired experimental design, unbalanced across cages considering of the weekly mixing of social groups. Sampling was primarily opportunistic, based on which ferrets were off-study on a given week and whether animals had previously experienced been in the playtime or control group. Seven ferrets experienced playtime commencement, and seven control outset.

Homecage Behavioural Observations

On the fourth day (Thursday, later 3 treatment days), an observation of homecage behaviour was conducted by the experimenter (JR), who stood quietly 1m away from the homecage. This occurred at ten:00-ten:30h, i.e. at the aforementioned time as the playtime handling had started on the preceding days, and 24h subsequently the start of the most contempo handling.

Live behavioural observations were adult on the footing of a pilot study, which had been conducted over 1 week preceding the study and which also served equally an attempt to habituate the ferrets to the observations. The behavioural ethogram is shown in Table 2. The 30 min protocol consisted of scan sampling of behaviour on a i-zero ground every xxx south for the iv ferrets within the homecage, scanning from left to right, pinnacle to bottom (Martin & Bateson 2007). When a ferret performed multiple behaviours simultaneously, but the most fleeting behaviour was recorded so as not to miss it, based on a priority list (behaviours that occasionally occurred together, listed from highest priority to lowest were: Screeching > Biting > Chasing > Walk/Run > Continuing).

Table 2

Ethogram of ferret behaviours and their relevance to the hypothesis.

Behaviour	Definition	Hypothetical relevance
Biting	The animal bites some other brute	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Chasing	The animal follows at a run another beast who is retreating	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Climbing	The animate being moves forth tunnel, or on a rope, cage bars or ramp	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Earthworks	The animal claws at the sawdust with paws/pushes the sawdust around with nose	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Drinking water	The animate being is stationary consuming water	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Eating Food	The creature is stationary consuming food - mouth is chewing	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Allo-grooming	The beast strokes tongue/claws over another ferret's fur	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Lying with eyes open	The beast is lying down stationary with eyes open	Sub-optimal arousal
Out of Sight	The animal is out of sight for observation	Included for completeness
Screeching	The animal makes a vocal screeching noise	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Continuing	The ferret stands stationary on all four anxiety for at least 2 seconds	Sub-optimal arousal
Sniffing Bars	The animate being approaches the cage bars, sniffing and looking out with optics open	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Cocky-grooming	The creature strokes tongue/claw over its fur	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Sitting	The animal is sitting stationary with head up and eyes open	Sub-optimal arousal
Sleeping	The beast is lying down stationary with head down and eyes closed	Sub-optimal arousal
Stretching	The brute is stretching	Sub-optimal arousal
Walking/running	The creature uses iv limbs to locomote on a horizontal surface	Restlessness/stimulus-seeking
Yawning	The creature opens its mouth with caput tilted backwards	Sub-optimal arousal

Ideally, a person other than the experimenter would have administered the handling, allowing the experimenter to remain bullheaded to treatment during behavioural observations. However, due to personnel shortage, the experimenter had to both supervise the playtime treatment and comport behavioural observations, so video recordings were taken to enable later bullheaded scoring and testing of observer reliability. Despite this attempt, the video-recordings proved excessively dark, preventing identification of each ferret and observation of behaviour, then only the live-recordings could be analysed.

Stimulus Interaction

After completing the 30 min observation, all four ferrets were removed from their cage to explore the room for 5 min to awaken whatever who were drowsy. They were then placed back in their cage and presented with half-dozen unlike stimuli in a randomised order (Table three). Each stimulus (bated from the ball with bong and empty plastic bottle) was presented within a tea-leaf strainer, and each was attached to the outside of the muzzle for 2 min in the aforementioned position on the middle cage level, with approximately 15s betwixt each stimulus. The ferrets' interactions with the stimuli were entirely voluntary. The starting location of ferrets could not be controlled, but was noted and taken into account in analyses. The latency and duration of contact with the stimuli (the ferret physically touching the stimuli either with their nose or paws) was recorded alive by the observer for each ferret for 2 min using a stopwatch. Again, video recordings were intended to provide data for later scoring, but these proved too dark for analysis.

Table 3

Overview of the stimuli presented to the ferrets.

Stimuli	Result	Rationale
Mouse bedding contained inside a tea-foliage strainer	Positive	Attractive to ferrets due to mice existence casualty in the wild
Ball with bell hung	Positive	Elicits a preference and a play response in ferrets (Reijgwart et al. 2017).
An empty tea-leaf strainer	Ambiguous	Novel with no apparent biological relevance
An empty plastic bottle	Ambiguous	Novel with no apparent biological relevance
Cotton wool soaked with 5ml of peppermint oil (Tisserand Aromatherapy® 100% extracted peppermint oil, Sayers Common, United kingdom) independent inside a tea-leaf strainer	Negative	An aversive odor for the ferrets (equally determined by headshakes and avoidance in the pilot study)
Cotton wool soaked with 5ml of bitter apple spray (Grannick's Biting Apple®) contained inside a tea-leafage strainer	Negative	Commercially available brute deterrent

Statistical Analysis

Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) were used to analyse the data in SPSS, with Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) being used in R when there were excessive zeroes (e.g. behaviours that most ferrets did not perform at all). For binary outcomes, models were checked for inflated standard errors; for continuous outcomes, models were checked for normality of residuals and homogeneity of variance, and the result transformed as necessary. Statistical significance is stated with two-tailed P-values < 0.05.

For the observations of unprovoked behaviour, many behaviours were besides rare for statistical analysis, and so the outcomes that could be tested were sleeping, lying with eyes open up, sitting or standing stationary (sitting and standing summed together), walking/running, sniffing the confined, screeching, and aggression (screeching, biting and chasing summed together). The fixed factor predictors were treatment, time points, age/implant (considered together because animals with implants were older) and appointment/grouping (considered together because the groups of any iv ferrets were each tested on unique dates), with ferret ID as a random gene. When there was complete separation of data (behaviour performed in one treatment and not at all in the other treatment), a not-parametric McNemar exam was used.

For the stimulus interaction test, the effect of treatment was run in a GLMM across all ferrets, with whether or not the ferret investigated the stimuli every bit the event,. The fixed predictors were treatment, stimulus type (positive, ambiguous, or negative), their two-way interaction, ferret start position, and stimulus presentation guild, with ferret ID, age/implant, and date/group as random factors. GLMMs were also run for only those ferrets who contacted the stimuli, and the measured outcomes tested were elapsing of, and latency to, contact. Latency was square root transformed to provide a normal distribution before running through the GLMM. The aforementioned predictors were used equally with the previous GLMM. Withal, where insufficient degrees of freedom were observed to support the interaction, separate models were run per stimulus type (positive, ambiguous and negative stimuli). When a ferret did not contact a stimulus at all during the 2-minute observation, that data indicate was excluded as a missing value in the models of latency and duration of contact.

Results

Homecage Behavioural Observations

On the solar day after playtime, ferrets spent significantly more fourth dimension sleeping (GEE: OD = 11.462; 95% CI [0.034, 0.227]; P < 0.001) and sitting (GEE: EO = iii.885; 95% CI [0.107, 0.619]; P = 0.002) than when in the control status. In plow, ferrets in the control status spent more time lying awake with eyes open (GMM: OD = 4.126; 95% CI [two.seventy, half-dozen.260]; P < 0.001) and screeching (GEE: OD = 17.407; 95% CI [17.405, 17.405], P < 0.001). The statistically significant effects are shown in Figure i. Walking/running and sniffing the bars showed no significant handling effects. Signs of assailment other than screeching were too rare for analysis alone, simply when combined with screeching to form an 'overall aggression' frequency, this showed no statistically significant effects.

Mean ± SE frequency of screeching, lying awake with eyes open, sitting or standing stationary, and sleeping in ferrets who had and had not received actress playtime. The subjects were female ferrets (n = fourteen) in a paired experimental design. Behaviour was recorded every 30 southward over a 30 min observation per ferret per handling.

Younger ferrets without an implant spent more time screeching (GEE: OD = 3.427; 95% CI [3.427, 3.427], P < 0.001) and sitting (GEE: OD = iii.665; 96% CI [1.533, 8.760], P = 0.003) and less time sleeping (GEE: OD = 0.356; 95% CI [0.209, 0.606], P < 0.001) than older ferrets. They besides exhibited increased frequencies of sniffing bars (GEE for SF: EO = iii.307; 95% CI [1.085, 10.086]; P = 0.035) and walking/running (GEE for WR: EO = ii.309; 95% CI [ane.247, 4.275]; P = 0.008) than older animals. Time point and date/group showed no significant effect on behaviour.

Stimulus Interaction

Ferrets in the control condition were more likely to contact stimuli than following the playtime treatment (GLMM: Odds +/- Southward.E. = 3.059 +/- 0.536, t = -2.217, P = 0.028). This effect was seen across stimulus types (Positive: Control = 12/14 ferrets vs Playtime = x/14; Ambiguous: Control = 11/fourteen vs Playtime = 10/fourteen; and Negative: Control = 11/14 vs Playtime = 9/xiv). Ferret starting position, stimulus type and club of presentation showed no effects on ferret interactions with the stimuli.

Of ferrets who did contact stimuli, playtime significantly increased latencies to contact the negative stimuli (GLMM: Coeff +/- Southward.East. = 0.974 +/- 0.376, t = 2.592, P = 0.012), with a non-meaning tendency in the aforementioned direction for cryptic stimuli (Coeff +/- S.Eastward. = 0.948 +/- 0.482; one.967; P = 0.055; Figure 2). In that location was no significant divergence or trend in latency to contact the positive stimuli.

Interactions with stimuli presented to ferrets who had and had not been given extra playtime. The mean ± SE latency to contact the stimuli is shown in (a), and the mean ± SE duration of contact with stimuli is shown in (b). Positive stimuli = ball with bong and mouse bedding; ambiguous = empty plastic bottle and empty tea-leaf strainer; and negative = bitter apple spray and peppermint oil. The subjects were female person ferrets (n = xiv) in a paired experimental pattern, with control data in blue and extra playtime data in orange.

Subsequently playtime ferrets spent significantly less time interacting with the ambiguous (GLMM: Coeff +/- S.Eastward. = -0.998 +/- 0.379; t = 2.637; P = 0.011) and negative (Coeff +/- S.East. = -1.733 +/- 0.278; t = 6.231; P < 0.001) stimuli, than under control weather condition. Again, there was no significant treatment consequence on duration interacting with the positive stimuli.

Discussion

The results advise that playtime reduces behaviours consequent with colorlessness in laboratory ferrets, even measured 24h after the most contempo play event. It seems that, simply every bit boredom-like states sometimes appear to prompt play in animals (Burghardt 1984; Held & Špinka 2011; Ahloy-Dallaire et al. 2018), the changed may likewise be true; play tin reduce signs of boredom.

The increased interactions of the control ferrets with negative and cryptic stimuli is entirely consequent with the same research in environmentally enriched versus standard-housed mink (Meagher & Mason 2012; Meagher et al. 2017), and this combined with aggressive screeching and lying awake further characterises a boredom-like state (Burn down 2017). If playtime can help reduce general aggression in laboratory animals, this could be of bang-up value for some species where assailment is a significant problem. However, in the ferrets, overall aggression was rare and showed no significant treatment effect, with simply the screeching vocalisation existence reduced afterwards play. It is possible that the screeching was non truly aggressive, although it is described every bit occurring mainly in negative contexts (Boyce et al. 2001), so its reduction via playtime is consequent with improved welfare. In future, recording screeching alongside the other behaviours with which information technology occurs would assistance in interpreting its social context.

When ferrets had non had playtime in the current study, they chose to collaborate with even negative stimuli: scents that had fabricated them gape, headshake and withdraw in our airplane pilot studies. This is consequent with previous observations that animals in monotonous situations seemingly adopt even unpleasant experiences over their existing monotony, which maybe confirms the aversive nature of colorlessness (Fire 2017). Examples include humans self-administering electric shocks when asked to think their own thoughts when alone for 15 min (Wilson et al. 2014), rats and hamsters choosing aversive food afterwards eating solely their preferred food for several consecutive days (Galef & Whiskin 2003, 2005), and mink in barren cages choosing to interact with predator cues, handling gloves and sudden air puffs (Meagher & Mason 2012).

In the ferrets, playtime increased sleeping (i.e. lying down with optics airtight, not open), and sitting/continuing stationary, neither of which we predicted. These are low arousal behaviours, but they do not propose that arousal was sub-optimal after playtime, because they did not co-occur with obvious attempts to raise arousal. One possible explanation for these depression arousal behaviours could be that the ferrets were simply tired out by the playtime. Still, the fact that the ferrets responded just as readily to the positive stimuli after playtime as they did in the control condition, makes fatigue an unlikely caption. Instead, their willingness to investigate positive stimuli, simply not ambiguous or negative stimuli, suggests that they were more 'finicky' well-nigh their stimulation on the day later on playtime than in the control status. This choosiness suggests that the increased low arousal behaviour later playtime could betoken a form of satisfaction or relaxation; the playtime may thus exemplify EE that has satisfied the motivation for full general stimulation (Meagher 2019).

Our attempts to bullheaded the observer to the treatments were unsuccessful, which means that the results crave replication under blinded conditions to eliminate the possibility of expectation bias (Tuyttens et al. 2014). We limited the potential for bias as much every bit possible before the experiment began, past discussing information technology explicitly and encouraging an impartial attitude; for example, whilst we hypothesised that playtime would reduce colorlessness, we discussed the possibility that instead we could notice an equally noteworthy contrast effect if playtime caused the ferrets to perceive the homecage as more, rather than less, boring (every bit described in Rennie & Buchanan-Smith 2006). We also discussed how to translate non-significant results to help counter publication bias towards meaning outcomes (Fanelli 2010; Dwan et al. 2013). If nosotros were thus successful in fugitive expectation bias, then the results do indeed suggest that playtime reduced behavioural indications both of sub-optimal arousal (lying awake with optics open) and of motivation for greater stimulation (agonistic screeching, and interactions with negative and ambiguous stimuli) (Burn down 2017).

It is worth noting that even the control ferrets hither did have EE in their homecage and explored their property room daily, and the results should not be interpreted as showing that their standard EE was ineffective. For ethical reasons, we did not compare the control handling confronting a barren cage, and it is possible that we would have found many more signs of compromised welfare in the arid environment had we done then. It is as well important to remember that the purpose of different EE varies, such as refuges to provide security, so non all benign EE functions to provide stimulation or reduce boredom.

Conclusion and animal welfare implications

In conclusion, subject field to replication, the results hither suggest that offering playtime to laboratory animals may exist an constructive refinement to reduce potential boredom and promote a more 'relaxed' land, fifty-fifty outside the playtime context.

Acknowledgements

Nosotros are grateful for funding for this project: JR was supported by a BBSRC funded London Interdisciplinary Doctoral Training Studentship; JKB was supported by Wellcome Trust (Grant Ref 098418/Z/12/Z). We would also similar to thank Dr Yu-Mei Reddish Chang for statistical communication and Stephen Town and Joseph Sollini for support in testing the ferrets. The manuscript was canonical for submission by RVC (manuscript number: PPS_01949).

References

• Adams KM, Navarro AM, Hutchinson EK, Weed JL. A Canine Socialization and Grooming Program at the National Institutes of Health. Lab Animal. 2004;33:32–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ahloy-Dallaire J, Espinosa J, Mason Grand. Play and optimal welfare: Does play indicate the presence of positive affective states? Behavioural Processes. 2018;156:3–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Anderson RC, Forest JB. Enrichment for Giant Pacific Octopuses: Happy equally a Mollusk? Journal of Practical Animal Welfare Scientific discipline. 2001;4:157–168. [Google Scholar]
• Bayne K, Würbel H. The impact of ecology enrichment on the outcome variability and scientific validity of laboratory animal studies. Revue scientifique et technique (International Function of Epizootics) 2014;33:273–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bennett JC, McRae PA, Levy LJ, Frick KM. Long-term continuous, but non daily, environmental enrichment reduces spatial memory decline in aged male mice. Neurobiology of Learning and Retentiveness. 2006;85:139–152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Berlyne DE. Disharmonize, arousal, and marvel. McGraw-Hill; New York: 1960. pp. 144–192. [Google Scholar]
• Boyce SW, Zingg BM, Lightfoot TL. Behavior of Mustela Putorius Furo (The Domestic Ferret) Veterinary Clinics of Northward America: Exotic Animal Practise. 2001;iv:697–712. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Burghardt GM. On the origins of play. In: Smith PK, editor. Play in animals and humans. Blackwell; Oxford: 1984. pp. v–41. [Google Scholar]
• Burghardt GM. A cursory glimpse at the long evolutionary history of play. Animal Behavior and Cognition. 2014;i:xc–98. [Google Scholar]
• Burn down CC. Bestial boredom: a biological perspective on animal boredom and suggestions for its scientific investigation. Animal Behaviour. 2017;130:141–151. [Google Scholar]
• Casey B, Abney D, Skoumbordis E. A playroom as novel swine enrichment. Lab Animal. 2007;36:32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Celli ML, Tomonaga Yard, Udono T, Teramoto M, Nagano Yard. Tool utilize task as environmental enrichment for convict chimpanzees. Applied Animate being Behaviour Science. 2003;81:171–182. [Google Scholar]
• Chamove Every bit. Environmental enrichment: A review. Animal Technology. 1989;40:155–176. [Google Scholar]
• Dwan Grand, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review. PLoS Ane. 2013;8:e66844. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Eastwood JD, Frischen A, Fenske MJ, Smilek D. The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:482–495. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fahlman SA, Mercer-Lynn KB, Flora DB, Eastwood JD. Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Cess. 2013;twenty:68–85. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fanelli D. Practise Pressures to Publish Increment Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from U.s. States Data. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10271. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Galef BG, Jr, Whiskin EE. Preference for novel flavors in adult Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2003;117:96–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Galef BG, Jr, Whiskin EE. Differences between golden hamsters (Mesocricetus auratus) and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) in preference for the sole diet that they are eating. Periodical of Comparative Psychology. 2005;119:8–xiii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Held SDE, Špinka M. Animal play and animal welfare. Fauna Behaviour. 2011;81:891–899. [Google Scholar]
• Langbein J, Siebert G, Nürnberg Grand. On the use of an automated learning device by group-housed dwarf goats: Exercise goats seek cognitive challenges? Applied Creature Behaviour Science. 2009;120:150–158. [Google Scholar]
• Manteuffel G, Langbein J, Puppe B. From operant learning to cognitive enrichment in farm animal housing: bases and applicability. Animate being Welfare. 2009;18:87–95. [Google Scholar]
• Martin P, Bateson P. Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide. Cambridge University Printing; Cambridge: 2007. pp. 1–171. [Google Scholar]
• Mason GJ, Burn down CC. Affiliate 7: Behavioural restriction. In: Appleby MC, Mench JA, Olsson A, Hughes BO, editors. Animate being Welfare. CABI Publishing; 2011. pp. 98–119. [Google Scholar]
• Meagher RK, Mason GJ. Environmental enrichment reduces signs of boredom in caged mink. PLoS 1. 2012;7:e49180. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Meagher RK, Campbell DLM, Dallaire JA, Díez-León M, Palme R, Mason GJ. Sleeping tight or hiding in fright? The welfare implications of different subtypes of inactivity in mink. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2013;144:138–146. [Google Scholar]
• Meagher RK, Campbell DL, Stonemason GJ. Furnishings of enrichment on colorlessness-like states in mink and their behavioural correlates: a replicate. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2017;197:112–119. [Google Scholar]
• Meagher RK. Is boredom an animal welfare business concern? Animate being Welfare. 2019;28:21–32. [Google Scholar]
• Meehan CL, Mench JA. The challenge of challenge: Can problem solving opportunities enhance animal welfare? Applied Animate being Behaviour Science. 2007;102:246–261. [Google Scholar]
• Newberry RC. Ecology enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 1995;44:229–243. [Google Scholar]
• Patterson-Kane EG. Environmental enrichment for laboratory rats: a review. Animal Applied science. 2001;52:77–84. [Google Scholar]
• Pereira LO, Arteni NS, Petersen RC, da Rocha AP, Achaval Thousand, Netto CA. Effects of daily ecology enrichment on retention deficits and brain injury post-obit neonatal hypoxia-ischemia in the rat. Neurobiology of Learning and Retention. 2007;87:101–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Puppe B, Ernst K, Schön PC, Manteuffel G. Cognitive enrichment affects behavioural reactivity in domestic pigs. Applied Fauna Behaviour Science. 2007;105:75–86. [Google Scholar]
• Reijgwart ML, Vinke CM, Hendriksen CFM, van der Meer M, Schoemaker NJ, van Zeeland YRA. Ferrets' (Mustela putorius furo) enrichment priorities and preferences as adamant in a 7-chamber consumer demand study. Applied Fauna Behaviour Science. 2017;180:114–121. [Google Scholar]
• Rennie A, Buchanan-Smith H. Refinement of the use of non-man primates in scientific research. Part Ii: housing, husbandry and acquisition. Animal Welfare. 2006;fifteen:215. [Google Scholar]
• Swaisgood RR, Shepherdson DJ. Scientific approaches to enrichment and stereotypies in zoo animals: what'southward been washed and where should we go adjacent? Zoo Biology. 2005;24:499–518. [Google Scholar]
• Town SM, Brimijoin WO, Bizley JK. Egoistic and allocentric representations in auditory cortex. PLoS Biology. 2017;15:e2001878. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tuyttens FAM, de Graaf Due south, Heerkens JLT, Jacobs Fifty, Nalon East, Ott S, Stadig 50, Van Laer East, Ampe B. Observer bias in fauna behaviour research: can we believe what we score, if nosotros score what nosotros believe? Animal Behaviour. 2014;90:273–280. [Google Scholar]
• Wells DL. A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Dog. Practical Animal Behaviour Scientific discipline. 2004;85:307–317. [Google Scholar]
• Wells DL. Sensory stimulation every bit ecology enrichment for convict animals: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2009;118:i–xi. [Google Scholar]
• Wemelsfelder F. Animal boredom: understanding the tedium of bars lives. In: McMillan FD, editor. Mental Health And Well-Beingness In Animals. Blackwell Publishing; Oxford: 2005. pp. 79–93. [Google Scholar]
• Widman DR, Rosellini RA. Restricted daily exposure to environmental enrichment increases the multifariousness of exploration. Physiology & Behavior. 1990;47:57–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wilson M, Warren J, Abbott 50. Infantile stimulation, activity, and learning by cats. Child Development. 1965;36:843–853. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Wilson TD, Reinhard DA, Westgate EC, Gilbert DT, Ellerbeck N, Hahn C, Dark-brown CL, Shaked A. Only think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science. 2014;345:75–77. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7099939/

Posted by: grangerapoing.blogspot.com

Share this post