Skyler Howard, Lisa M. Gunter, Erica N. Feuerbacher
{"title":"有气味的玩具更有趣吗?收容所狗狗对玩具、气味和香味玩具的偏好","authors":"Skyler Howard, Lisa M. Gunter, Erica N. Feuerbacher","doi":"10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>As dogs reside in shelters awaiting adoption, it is critical that they remain behaviorally healthy. A variety of enrichment strategies improve the welfare of shelter dogs, including object (usually in the form of toys) and scent enrichment. However, for these interventions to be enriching, dogs must engage with the items and their welfare be positively affected. Thus, by identifying dogs’ preferences, shelters can improve the function of their enrichment. Using a 15 min free operant preference assessment, an assessment in which the subject is given free access to a variety of items and the duration of their engagement with each item is recorded, we investigated 34 shelter dogs’ preferences for four different toys: a stuffed toy, tennis ball, Nylabone, and flying disc. We also investigated dog’ preferences for four scents: hotdog, peppermint, duck, and an unfamiliar dog. Finally, we applied the dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys to investigate whether adding their preferred scent would increase the amount of time they engaged with those items compared to unscented duplicates. During the toy preference assessment, we observed that dogs, on average, only interacted with toys 3.35 % of the 15 min session. However, we found that dogs engaged over eight times longer with the stuffed toy as compared to all other toys, <em>F</em> (1, 134) = 64.40, <em>p</em> <.001. There was a marginal effect of type during the scent assessment, <em>F</em> (3, 132) = 2.50, <em>p</em> =.062, but post hoc comparisons were not significant. When we applied each dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys, we found statistically significant main effects for preference, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 54.95, <em>p</em> <.001, and scent, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 7.16, <em>p</em> =.008, and a significant preference-by-scent interaction, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 4.66, <em>p</em> =.033. The addition of scent increased engagement with both toys, such that dogs spent 4.2 and 13.7 times more seconds with their most and least preferred toys, respectively. In addition to our results aligning with prior research demonstrating that dogs prefer soft versus hard toys, these findings suggest that combining objects and scents can increase dogs’ engagement with enrichment and may be especially impactful when providing shelter dogs with less preferred objects, such as hard toys.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8222,"journal":{"name":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","volume":"278 ","pages":"Article 106383"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are smelly toys more fun? Shelter dogs’ preferences for toys, scents, and scented toys\",\"authors\":\"Skyler Howard, Lisa M. Gunter, Erica N. Feuerbacher\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>As dogs reside in shelters awaiting adoption, it is critical that they remain behaviorally healthy. A variety of enrichment strategies improve the welfare of shelter dogs, including object (usually in the form of toys) and scent enrichment. However, for these interventions to be enriching, dogs must engage with the items and their welfare be positively affected. Thus, by identifying dogs’ preferences, shelters can improve the function of their enrichment. Using a 15 min free operant preference assessment, an assessment in which the subject is given free access to a variety of items and the duration of their engagement with each item is recorded, we investigated 34 shelter dogs’ preferences for four different toys: a stuffed toy, tennis ball, Nylabone, and flying disc. We also investigated dog’ preferences for four scents: hotdog, peppermint, duck, and an unfamiliar dog. Finally, we applied the dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys to investigate whether adding their preferred scent would increase the amount of time they engaged with those items compared to unscented duplicates. During the toy preference assessment, we observed that dogs, on average, only interacted with toys 3.35 % of the 15 min session. However, we found that dogs engaged over eight times longer with the stuffed toy as compared to all other toys, <em>F</em> (1, 134) = 64.40, <em>p</em> <.001. There was a marginal effect of type during the scent assessment, <em>F</em> (3, 132) = 2.50, <em>p</em> =.062, but post hoc comparisons were not significant. When we applied each dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys, we found statistically significant main effects for preference, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 54.95, <em>p</em> <.001, and scent, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 7.16, <em>p</em> =.008, and a significant preference-by-scent interaction, <em>F</em> (1, 132) = 4.66, <em>p</em> =.033. The addition of scent increased engagement with both toys, such that dogs spent 4.2 and 13.7 times more seconds with their most and least preferred toys, respectively. In addition to our results aligning with prior research demonstrating that dogs prefer soft versus hard toys, these findings suggest that combining objects and scents can increase dogs’ engagement with enrichment and may be especially impactful when providing shelter dogs with less preferred objects, such as hard toys.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Animal Behaviour Science\",\"volume\":\"278 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106383\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Animal Behaviour Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159124002314\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Animal Behaviour Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159124002314","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在收容所中等待领养的狗狗们,保持行为健康至关重要。有多种充实策略可以改善收容所狗狗的福利,包括物品(通常以玩具的形式)和气味充实。但是,要使这些干预措施起到增益作用,狗狗必须接触这些物品,并且它们的福利也必须受到积极影响。因此,通过识别犬只的偏好,收容所可以改善其增益功能。我们使用 15 分钟自由操作性偏好评估(即让受试者自由接触各种物品并记录其接触每个物品的持续时间),调查了 34 只收容犬对四种不同玩具的偏好:毛绒玩具、网球、Nylabone 和飞盘。我们还调查了狗狗对四种气味的偏好:热狗、薄荷、鸭子和陌生狗狗。最后,我们在狗狗最喜欢和最不喜欢的玩具上涂上它们喜欢的气味,以研究与没有气味的复制品相比,添加它们喜欢的气味是否会增加它们接触这些玩具的时间。在玩具偏好评估过程中,我们观察到狗狗在 15 分钟的时间里平均只有 3.35% 的时间与玩具互动。但是,我们发现,与所有其他玩具相比,狗与毛绒玩具的互动时间要长八倍以上,F (1, 134) = 64.40, p <.001。在气味评估过程中,类型的影响微乎其微,F (3, 132) = 2.50, p =.062,但事后比较的结果并不显著。当我们将每只狗喜欢的气味应用到它们最喜欢和最不喜欢的玩具上时,我们发现偏好(F (1, 132) = 54.95, p <.001)和气味(F (1, 132) = 7.16, p =.008)的主效应和偏好与气味的交互效应(F (1, 132) = 4.66, p =.033)具有统计学意义。香味的加入增加了狗狗对两种玩具的参与度,使狗狗在最喜欢和最不喜欢的玩具上花费的时间分别增加了 4.2 和 13.7 倍。我们的研究结果与之前的研究结果一致,即狗狗更喜欢软玩具而不是硬玩具,此外,这些研究结果还表明,将物品和气味结合起来可以提高狗狗对强化玩具的参与度,尤其是在为收容所狗狗提供硬玩具等它们不太喜欢的物品时。
Are smelly toys more fun? Shelter dogs’ preferences for toys, scents, and scented toys
As dogs reside in shelters awaiting adoption, it is critical that they remain behaviorally healthy. A variety of enrichment strategies improve the welfare of shelter dogs, including object (usually in the form of toys) and scent enrichment. However, for these interventions to be enriching, dogs must engage with the items and their welfare be positively affected. Thus, by identifying dogs’ preferences, shelters can improve the function of their enrichment. Using a 15 min free operant preference assessment, an assessment in which the subject is given free access to a variety of items and the duration of their engagement with each item is recorded, we investigated 34 shelter dogs’ preferences for four different toys: a stuffed toy, tennis ball, Nylabone, and flying disc. We also investigated dog’ preferences for four scents: hotdog, peppermint, duck, and an unfamiliar dog. Finally, we applied the dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys to investigate whether adding their preferred scent would increase the amount of time they engaged with those items compared to unscented duplicates. During the toy preference assessment, we observed that dogs, on average, only interacted with toys 3.35 % of the 15 min session. However, we found that dogs engaged over eight times longer with the stuffed toy as compared to all other toys, F (1, 134) = 64.40, p <.001. There was a marginal effect of type during the scent assessment, F (3, 132) = 2.50, p =.062, but post hoc comparisons were not significant. When we applied each dog’s preferred scent to their most and least preferred toys, we found statistically significant main effects for preference, F (1, 132) = 54.95, p <.001, and scent, F (1, 132) = 7.16, p =.008, and a significant preference-by-scent interaction, F (1, 132) = 4.66, p =.033. The addition of scent increased engagement with both toys, such that dogs spent 4.2 and 13.7 times more seconds with their most and least preferred toys, respectively. In addition to our results aligning with prior research demonstrating that dogs prefer soft versus hard toys, these findings suggest that combining objects and scents can increase dogs’ engagement with enrichment and may be especially impactful when providing shelter dogs with less preferred objects, such as hard toys.
期刊介绍:
This journal publishes relevant information on the behaviour of domesticated and utilized animals.
Topics covered include:
-Behaviour of farm, zoo and laboratory animals in relation to animal management and welfare
-Behaviour of companion animals in relation to behavioural problems, for example, in relation to the training of dogs for different purposes, in relation to behavioural problems
-Studies of the behaviour of wild animals when these studies are relevant from an applied perspective, for example in relation to wildlife management, pest management or nature conservation
-Methodological studies within relevant fields
The principal subjects are farm, companion and laboratory animals, including, of course, poultry. The journal also deals with the following animal subjects:
-Those involved in any farming system, e.g. deer, rabbits and fur-bearing animals
-Those in ANY form of confinement, e.g. zoos, safari parks and other forms of display
-Feral animals, and any animal species which impinge on farming operations, e.g. as causes of loss or damage
-Species used for hunting, recreation etc. may also be considered as acceptable subjects in some instances
-Laboratory animals, if the material relates to their behavioural requirements