{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0176678445229682, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.169491525423729, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Use of cognitive bias as a welfare tool in poultry.

In human psychology, the link between cognition and emotions is broadly accepted. However, the idea of using the interaction between cognition and emotions as a tool for better understanding of animal emotions or for welfare assessment is relatively new. The first avian species used in cognitive bias tests was the European starling followed by the domestic chicken and other species. The most frequently used paradigm is the affect-induced judgment bias. There are many variations of the judgment bias tests in birds. The test itself is preceded by discrimination training. Discrimination tasks vary from visual cue discrimination, discrimination of time intervals to spatial location discrimination. During the discrimination training, birds flip or do not flip the lids of the food dishes, and their latency to approach the cues in a straight alley maze, in a two-choice arena, or different locations in spatial judgment task arena are measured. Alternately, the birds fulfill operant tasks in a Skinner box. Before or after the discrimination training phase, birds are subjected to manipulations that are hypothesized to induce positive or negative emotional states. In the last stage, birds are subjected to judgment bias tests. The assumption is that animals in a negative affective state would more likely respond to ambiguous cues, as if they predict the negative event, than animals in a more positive state. However, the results of some avian studies are inconsistent, particularly those studying the effect of environmental enrichment. In starlings, each of the three studies has supplied conflicting results. In poultry, none of the four studies demonstrated a positive effect of environmental enrichment on emotional states. Only the study using unpredictable stressors in combination with environmental complexity showed that animals kept in a more complex environment are more optimistic. Manipulation of the social environment seems to be more effective in judgment bias induction. Conflicting results could be attributable to the design of the tests, the manner of affect induction, or the data analysis. Further optimization and validation of avian cognitive bias tests could help to avoid such problems as the loss of ambiguity. New methods of attention and memory bias testing are promising. However, regardless of the abovementioned complications, a cognitive bias paradigm is a valuable tool, which can help us better understand avian emotions and assess poultry welfare.