Shedding light: an evidence-based approach to adapting cognitive bias tests for reptiles
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Assessment of positive welfare: a review
Yeates, J. W., & Main, D. C. J. (2008) · The Veterinary Journal · doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009 · Cited by 504 · see citing works
Bashaw, M. J., Gibson, M. D., Schowe, D. M., & Kucher, A. S. (2016) · Applied Animal Behaviour Science · doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.003 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Advances in Applied Zoo Animal Welfare Science
Ward, S. J., Sherwen, S., & Clark, F. E. (2018) · Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science · doi:10.1080/10888705.2018.1513842 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Zoo animal welfare assessment: where do we stand?
Tallo-Parra, O., Salas, M., & Manteca, X. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13121966 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
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
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2026-10-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 10
- ISSN
- 1744-9561 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-957X
- PMC
- PMC13725519
- OpenAlex
- W7224107936
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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