| Literature DB >> 31636583 |
Barbara Regaiolli1, Angelo Rizzo1, Giorgio Ottolini1, Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini2, Caterina Spiezio1, Christian Agrillo3.
Abstract
Investigating perceptual and cognitive abilities of zoo animals might help to improve their husbandry and enrich their daily life with new stimuli. Developing new environmental enrichment programs and devices is hence necessary to promote species-specific behaviors that need to be maintained in controlled environments. As far as we are aware, no study has ever tested the potential benefits of motion illusions as visual enrichment for zoo animals. Starting from a recent study showing that domestic cats are spontaneously attracted by a well-known motion illusion, the Rotating Snake (RS) illusion, we studied whether this illusion could be used as a visual enrichment for big cats. We observed the spontaneous behavior of three lionesses when three different visual stimuli were placed in their environment: the RS illusion and two control stimuli. The study involved two different periods: the baseline and the RS period, in which the visual stimuli were provided to the lionesses. To assess whether the lionesses were specifically attracted by the RS illusion, we collected data on the number of interactions with the stimuli, as well as on the total time spent interacting with them. To investigate the effect of the illusion on the animals' welfare, individual and social behaviors were studied, and compared between the two periods. The results showed that two lionesses out of three interacted more with the RS stimulus than with the two control stimuli. The fact that the lionesses seemed to be more inclined to interact with the RS stimulus indirectly suggests the intriguing possibility that they were attracted by the illusory motion. Moreover, behavioral changes between the two periods were reported for one of the lionesses, highlighting a reduction in self-directed behaviors and an increase in attentive behaviors, and suggesting positive welfare implications. Thus, behavioral observations made before and during the presentation of the stimuli showed that our visual enrichment actually provided positive effects in lionesses. These results call for the development of future studies on the use of visual illusions in the enrichment programs of zoo animals.Entities:
Keywords: Rotating Snake illusion; animal welfare; environmental enrichment; visual illusions; zoo animals
Year: 2019 PMID: 31636583 PMCID: PMC6788361 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02220
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 2Visual pattern presented within each stimulus: (A) Rotating Snake (RS), (B) Control 1, and (C) Control 2. Stimulus (A,B) were identical, with the exception that the sequence of colored segments varied between the two arrays; only the former sequence could elicit the motion illusion in human observers.
FIGURE 1Arrangement of the three triplets of stimuli in the outdoor area of the enclosure. The three triplets were arranged in a semicircle around the guillotine door through which the lionesses had access to the outdoor area (indicated by the arrow).
Behavioral ethogram of the study lionesses.
| I | |
| Inactivity | Laying or crouching with eyes closed |
| Attention | Staring at one area or paying attention to any visual or auditory stimulus |
| Observing | Looking around calmly |
| Locomotion | Walking, running or jumping |
| Maintenance | Yawning, drinking, urinating and defecating |
| Self-grooming | Licking or scratching of the own body |
| Scent-marking | Marking substrates or objects in the enclosure by urine-spray (releasing urine backward against a vertical surface or object while standing with tail raised vertically), rolling and rubbing (leaving scents on the substrate or on any object, respectively) |
| Olfactory exploration | Sniffing the air, an object or the substrate, performing flehmen |
| Environmental Enrichment | Interacting with an enrichment device by biting, dragging, scratching or carrying it in the mouth |
| Anticipatory behavior | Moving near the entrance of the indoor area of the enclosure |
| Affiliative behavior∗ | Social play (play-fight, chasing, palying together with an enrichment device), putting the front paw or rubbing on a conspecific, social grooming (licking a conspecific or being licked) and paying attention to conspecifics by observing them with interest |
| Agonistic behavior∗ | Dominance mount, threat display, aggression |
| Interspecific behavior | Paying attention to humans such as visitors and zookeepers |
| Out of sight | The animal is not visible from the point of observation (visitor window) |
FIGURE 3Percentage of times in which lionesses interacted with the three stimuli (A) and proportion of time (B) spent near the three stimuli (C1, Control 1; C2, Control 2; RS, Rotating Snake). Bars represent the standard error of the mean.
FIGURE 4Activity, inactivity, and out-of-sight behavior of the lionesses. Box and whisker plot of the time spent being inactive, active, and out of sight at baseline (light gray) and during the RS period (dark gray) by the study subjects (A) Kianga, (B) Lubaya, and (C) Safia. The horizontal lines within the box indicate the medians; boundaries of the box indicate the first and third quartile. The whiskers extend from the top of the box to the largest data element that is less than or equal to 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR) and down from the bottom to the smallest data element that is larger than 1.5 times the IQR. Values outside this range are considered outliers and are drawn as points.
Individual and social behaviors performed by the study lionesses.
| Baseline | 0 (62.3) 0% | 31.5 (98.8) 3% | 0 (0) 0% | 13 (115.8) 4% | 6.5 (16.3), 1% | 0 (0) 0% | 0 (0) 0% | 391 (404.3) 30% | 0 (0) 0% | 6 (44.8) 1% | 0 (0) 0% | 467 (604.3) 26% |
| RS period | 119 (119) 7% | 0 (10.5) 0% | 0 (19.5) 1% | 49 (148.3) 5% | 8.5 (17) 1% | 0 (0) 0% | 0 (0) 0% | 612 (570.8) 34% | 26 (206.3) 16% | 75.5 (153.8) 5% | 0 (0) 0% | 78 (177) 7% |
| 0.005∗∗ | 0.008∗∗ | 0.109 | 0.722 | 0.919 | 1 | 0.739 | 0.580 | 0.014∗ | 0.041∗ | 0.478 | 0.010∗ | |
| −0.433 | 0.496 | −0.327 | −0.091 | 0.027 | −0.204 | 0.109 | −0.128 | 0.449 | −0.320 | 0.274 | 0.528 | |
| Baseline | 29 (111.3) 4% | 0 (0) 0% | 0 (0) 0% | 17.5 (186.5) 8% | 2 (11) 0% | 0 (4.5) 0% | 0 (0) 2% | 495.5 (605.8) 35% | 0 (0) 2% | 0 (87.3) 2% | 0 (0) 0% | 164 (199.3) 12% |
| RS period | 58 (239.3) 8% | 0 (30) 1% | 0 (3) 0% | 58.5 (77.8) 3% | 13 (22) 1% | 0 (0) 0% | 0 (0) 0% | 733.5 (570.5) 36% | 0 (298.8) 9% | 125.5 (221.8) 7% | 0 (0) 0% | 244.5 (342.8) 15% |
| 0.260 | 0.590 | 0.109 | 0.541 | 0.036∗ | 0.342 | 0.739 | 0.755 | 0.284 | 0.053 | 1 | 0.542 | |
| −0.281 | −0.138 | −0.327 | 0.096 | −0.390 | 0.263 | 0.109 | −0.064 | −0.248 | −0.381 | −0.204 | −0.128 | |
| Baseline | 0 (68) 2% | 0 (39.8) 2% | 0 (0) 0% | 56.5 (190.3) 5% | 2 (20.8) 2% | 0 (3.8) 0% | 14 (82.8) 4% | 576.5 (626.8) 34% | 0 (0) 0% | 27 (64) 3% | 0 (0) 0% | 199 (357) 15% |
| RS period | 67.5 (231) 6% | 0 (89) 3% | 50 (260.8) 8% | 82 (195.8) 6% | 36 (78.3) 2% | 2.5 (34.3) 1% | 0 (9) 1% | 442 (530.3)25% | 0 (34.5) 4% | 58 (196.5)9% | 0 (0) 0% | 102 (225)10% |
| 0.069 | 0.672 | 0.017∗ | 0.447 | 0.121 | 0.138 | 0.175 | 0.410 | 0.217 | 0.126 | 1 | 0.272 | |
| −0.351 | −0.104 | −0.449 | −0.127 | −0.286 | −0.300 | 0.345 | 0.368 | −0.327 | −0.218 | – | 0.304 |
FIGURE 5Example of remains of the stimuli after an experimental session.