Cited by 0Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaAmphibian and Reptile Biology

Shedding light: an evidence-based approach to adapting cognitive bias tests for reptiles

Open access
Turner, Jessica T., Fernandez, Eduardo J., Whittaker, Alexandra L.·2026·Biology Letters

Abstract

Quantifying animals' subjective experiences, or affective states, has become an increasing focus within welfare science. Physiological measures can reliably detect emotional arousal, but assessing valence, whether an experience is positive or negative, remains challenging. Behavioural indicators can assist in this regard, yet they often require species-specific interpretation and may introduce observer bias. These difficulties are compounded when working with relatively understudied taxa such as reptiles. Cognitive bias tests, particularly attention and judgement bias paradigms, provide a promising approach for assessing affect. Attention bias tests are rapid, cost-effective and require minimal training, whereas judgement bias tests, although more time-intensive, can detect subtle shifts in affect and can be repeated over time to monitor long-term changes. Despite their potential, few studies have applied these methods to reptiles, and necessary species-specific adaptations remain largely untested. Pilot studies are therefore essential to establish learning rates, identify effective cues and determine motivational preferences across reptile species. Developing a clearer link between cognitive bias and welfare outcomes will also be important. Given the increasing number of reptiles housed in private and professional settings, there is a pressing need for robust empirical tools to assess their welfare. Cognitive bias testing represents a promising and underused method that could significantly advance welfare science in reptiles.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsbl.2026.0318

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Turner, J. T., Fernandez, E. J., & Whittaker, A. L.
Affiliations
Adelaide University (AU)
Corresponding author
Turner, Jessica T.
Venue
Biology Letters
Published
2026-10-07
Volume
22
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-957X
OpenAlex
W7224107936
Cited by
0
References
4
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biology Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  • Adelaide University Research Scholarship
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Amphibian and Reptile Biology
Keywords
reptiles, animal welfare, affective states, attentional bias, judgment bias, species-specific adaptation, learning rate, observer bias
MeSH terms
Animals, Animal Welfare, Behavior, Animal, Cognition, Reptiles

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review