Neville Vikki, Finnegan Emily, Paul Elizabeth S, Davidson Molly, Dayan Peter, Mendl Michael
Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics & University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Affect Sci. 2024 Jun 26;5(3):232-245. doi: 10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Effective and safe foraging requires animals to behave according to the expectations they have about the rewards, threats, and costs in their environment. Since these factors are thought to be reflected in the animals' affective states, we can use foraging behavior as a window into those states. In this study, rats completed a foraging task in which they had repeatedly to decide whether to continue to harvest a food source despite increasing time costs, or to forgo food to switch to a different food source. Rats completed this task across two experiments using manipulations designed to induce both positive and negative, and shorter- and longer- term changes in affective state: removal and return of enrichment (Experiment 1), implementation and reversal of an unpredictable housing treatment (Experiment 1), and delivery of rewards (tickling or sucrose) and punishers (air-puff or back-handling) immediately prior to testing (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, rats completed fewer trials and were more prone to switching between troughs when housed in standard, compared to enriched, housing conditions. In Experiment 2, rats completed more trials following pre-test tickling compared to pre-test sucrose delivery. However, we also found that they were prone to disengaging from the task, suggesting they were really choosing between three options: 'harvest', 'switch', or 'not work'. This limits the straightforward interpretation of the results. At present, foraging behavior within the context of this task cannot reliably be used as an indicator of an affective state in animals.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4.
有效的安全觅食要求动物根据它们对环境中奖励、威胁和成本的预期来表现。由于这些因素被认为反映在动物的情感状态中,我们可以将觅食行为作为了解这些状态的窗口。在本研究中,大鼠完成了一项觅食任务,在该任务中,它们必须反复决定是否不顾时间成本增加继续收获一种食物来源,或者放弃食物转而选择另一种食物来源。大鼠通过两个实验完成了这项任务,实验采用了旨在诱导情感状态的正负、短期和长期变化的操作:移除和恢复丰富环境(实验1)、实施和撤销不可预测的饲养处理(实验1),以及在测试前立即给予奖励(挠痒痒或蔗糖)和惩罚(吹气或反手处理)(实验2)。在实验1中,与饲养在丰富环境条件下相比,饲养在标准环境中的大鼠完成的试验较少,并且更倾向于在食槽之间切换。在实验2中,与测试前给予蔗糖相比,测试前挠痒痒后大鼠完成的试验更多。然而,我们还发现它们倾向于脱离任务,这表明它们实际上是在三个选项之间进行选择:“收获”、“切换”或“不工作”。这限制了对结果的直接解释。目前,在此任务背景下的觅食行为不能可靠地用作动物情感状态的指标。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4获取的补充材料。