Cognitive ability and awareness in domestic animals and decisions about obligations to animals

By D. Broom. 2010

123 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus domesticus (2015, background): “Howell, Toukhsati, Conduit, and Bennett (2013) adapted a similar paradigm to that used by Broom et al. (2009) to dogs and found that more dogs could find the location of hidden food reflected in an angled mirror than those in a control group without a mirror.”
Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living” (2016, background): “Nevertheless, a major strength of the Five Freedoms paradigm was that it very effectively directed attention towards the need to understand, identify and minimise negative welfare states, and this aligned with the major focus of most animal welfare science activity during the last two decades [30–32”
Cognitive bias in a non-human primate: husbandry procedures influence cognitive indicators of psychological well-being in captive rhesus macaques (2012, methodology): “Improving methods used to assess the psychological wellbeing of animals in captivity is a key goal for animal welfare researchers (Dawkins 1990; Mendl & Paul 2004; Rennie & Buchanan-Smith 2006a,b; Veissier et al 2008; Broom 2010; Mason & Veassey 2010; Mendl et al 2010a; NC3Rs 2011).”