Assessing affective states in domestic dogs through judgment bias tasks: a systematic review of methods, influencing factors, and welfare applications.
- 1Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
- 2Department of Clinical Sciences and Translational Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
Judgment bias tasks (JBTs) have emerged as a promising approach for assessing affective states in animals, including domestic dogs, by measuring optimistic or pessimistic responses to ambiguous stimuli as proxies for underlying emotion. Despite growing use, the canine evidence base had not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Scopus and PubMed, with a supplementary search of Web of Science Core Collection. Thirty-two studies (15 experimental, 13 observational/quasi-experimental, 4 methodological) met the inclusion criteria. Experimental studies were appraised with the SYRCLE risk-of-bias tool. Findings were synthesized narratively, as methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five paradigm types were identified, but 28 of the 32 studies (88%) used the same spatial discrimination task; the four remaining paradigms were represented by one study each. JBTs showed sensitivity to some experimental manipulations, including oxytocin (d = 2.16) and environmental enrichment (nosework, p < 0.01), while observational and quasi-experimental studies also reported associations between training method and JBT performance (e.g., aversive versus reward-based training: Z = -2.38, p = 0.017). However, validity and reliability concerns were pervasive: ceiling effects at ambiguous locations, confounding by spatial-learning ability, poor test-retest reliability, and absent protocol standardization. Convergence with independent welfare indicators was only partial. JBTs are responsive to some affective manipulations and are associated with relevant welfare and experiential factors, but substantial validity and reliability limitations remain. Standardized protocols and multi-method validation are needed before JBTs can serve as field measures of canine welfare.
Related
- Systematic review of Coxiella burnetii infection in humans, domestic and wild animals, ticks and ectoparasites in Algeria 1935–2025
- SEARAM – Seagrass Bed Rapid Assessment Method: A Spatially Explicit Approach to Assessing Seagrass Ecological Condition with Multiple Applications
- Comparison of Methods for Assessing Chlamydia trachomatis Transmission Intensity: A Systematic Review
- Assessing clinical utility of genomic risk stratification for cancer prevention: a systematic review
- In-ear electroencephalography: a systematic review of technology, applications, challenges, and future directions
BibTeX
@article{gazzano2026assessing,
title = {{Assessing affective states in domestic dogs through judgment bias tasks: a systematic review of methods, influencing factors, and welfare applications.}},
author = {Valentina Gazzano and Luca Ciurli and Maria Claudia Curadi and Paolo Baragli and Angelo Gazzano and Asahi Ogi},
journal = {Frontiers in veterinary science},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fvets.2026.1926433},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42997318},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Assessing affective states in domestic dogs through judgment bias tasks: a systematic review of methods, influencing factors, and welfare applications.
AU - Valentina Gazzano
AU - Luca Ciurli
AU - Maria Claudia Curadi
AU - Paolo Baragli
AU - Angelo Gazzano
AU - Asahi Ogi
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/23
JO - Frontiers in veterinary science
DO - 10.3389/fvets.2026.1926433
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42997318
AB - Judgment bias tasks (JBTs) have emerged as a promising approach for assessing affective states in animals, including domestic dogs, by measuring optimistic or pessimistic responses to ambiguous stimuli as proxies for underlying emotion. Despite growing use, the canine evidence base had not been systematically evaluated. We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searching Scopus and PubMed, with a supplementary search of Web of Science Core Collection. Thirty-two studies (15 experimental, 13 observational/quasi-experimental, 4 methodological) met the inclusion criteria. Experimental studies were appraised with the SYRCLE risk-of-bias tool. Findings were synthesized narratively, as methodological heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five paradigm types were identified, but 28 of the 32 studies (88%) used the same spatial discrimination task; the four remaining paradigms were represented by one study each. JBTs showed sensitivity to some experimental manipulations, including oxytocin (d = 2.16) and environmental enrichment (nosework, p < 0.01), while observational and quasi-experimental studies also reported associations between training method and JBT performance (e.g., aversive versus reward-based training: Z = -2.38, p = 0.017). However, validity and reliability concerns were pervasive: ceiling effects at ambiguous locations, confounding by spatial-learning ability, poor test-retest reliability, and absent protocol standardization. Convergence with independent welfare indicators was only partial. JBTs are responsive to some affective manipulations and are associated with relevant welfare and experiential factors, but substantial validity and reliability limitations remain. Standardized protocols and multi-method validation are needed before JBTs can serve as field measures of canine welfare.
SN - 2297-1769
ER -