University of Copenhagen study shows more comprehension of domestic than wild animals

哥本哈根大学的一项研究表明，人们对家养动物的理解能力高于野生动物

The study looked at six species, including goats. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

这项研究观察了包括山羊在内的6个物种。照片：Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

It might not be animal communication Dr Dolittle-style, but researchers have found humans are able to glean insights into the feelings of creatures including pigs, horses and goats based on their vocalisations.

这可能不是怪医杜立德式的动物交流，但研究人员发现，人类能够通过猪、马和山羊等动物的声音来了解它们的感受。

The team say the findings suggest certain information within sounds, such as how intense an animal’s emotions are, appears to be conveyed in a similar way across species.

研究小组说，研究结果表明，声音中的某些信息，比如动物的情绪有多强烈，似乎在不同物种之间以类似的方式传递。

“[People] probably base their decisions on their knowledge of how humans sound when they’re more or less aroused … because arousal, which is linked to stress pathways, is a system that is well conserved across vertebrates,” said Dr Elodie Briefer, co-author of the research from the University of Copenhagen.

“[人们]可能以他们对人类或多或少唤醒时的声音的了解为基础......因为与压力途径相关的唤醒是一个在脊椎动物中保存良好的系统，“哥本哈根大学该研究的合著者Elodie Briefer博士说。

They also looked whether people could determine whether an animal was expressing a positive or negative emotion.

他们还研究了人们是否能判断动物是在表达积极的情绪还是消极的情绪。

“We cannot really rely on what we know from humans because it varies a lot between species – there are lots of differences in how species express emotions, even closely related ones,” said Briefer.

Briefer说:“我们不能真的依赖于我们从人类身上所知道的，因为物种之间有很大的差异——物种表达情感的方式有很多差异，即使是关系密切的物种。”

Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, Briefer and colleagues report how they recorded vocalisations from six animal species – horses, pigs, goats, cattle, Przewalski’s horses (wild horses) and wild boars. The team noted whether the sound was made when the animal was aroused – as determined by a high heart rate or movement – and whether the sound was made in a positive context, such anticipating food, or a negative context, such as being isolated.

Briefer和同事们在皇家学会开放科学杂志上发表文章，报告了他们是如何记录六种动物的声音的——马、猪、山羊、牛、普氏野马和野猪。研究小组记录了这种声音是在动物被唤醒时发出的(由高心率或运动决定)，以及这种声音是在积极的环境下发出的，比如期待食物，还是在消极的环境下发出的，比如被隔离。

For humans, the team used existing recordings of meaningless strings of speech spoken in rage or in fear to represent higher and lower emotional intensity – or arousal – respectively, and in an angry or joyful way to suggest a negative or positive context.

对于人类来说，研究小组使用了现有的一些无意义的语音录音，这些语音是在愤怒或恐惧的情况下说的，分别代表较高和较低的情绪强度(或唤醒)，并以愤怒或快乐的方式表示消极或积极的环境。

The researchers then asked 1,024 participants from 48 countries to each listen online to pairs of the sounds.

然后，研究人员让来自48个国家的1024名参与者在线收听成对的声音。

For each species, participants were played four pairs of vocalisations. For two pairs they were asked to rate the emotional intensity of the sound as high or low, while for the other two pairs they were asked to rate the emotion as positive or negative.

对于每个物种，参与者都被播放了四对声音。其中两对参与者被要求对声音的情绪强度进行高或低的评级，而另外两对参与者则被要求对声音的情绪强度进行积极或消极的评级。

The results reveal that, overall, participants correctly rated the emotional intensity of the subject 54.1% of the time, and type of emotion 55.3% of the time.

结果显示，总体而言，参与者在54.1%的时间内正确评估了受试者的情绪强度，在55.3%的时间内正确评估了情绪类型。

However when the team analysed the data further, they found the participants only did better than chance on both metrics when assessing vocalisations from pigs, horses, goats, humans, and – for type of emotion only – wild boars.

然而，当研究小组进一步分析数据时，他们发现参与者在评估猪、马、山羊、人类和(仅就情绪类型而言)野猪的发声时，只在这两项指标上表现得比随机更好。

“People are in general better at recognising domestic than wild species,” said Briefer.

Briefer说:“人们通常更善于识别家养物种，而不是野生物种。”

The arousal level of pigs and horses was rated correctly 59% and 58% of the time respectively, compared with 55% for humans, while their type of emotion was rated correctly 58% and 64% of the time respectively, compared with 68% for humans.

猪和马的唤醒水平的正确率分别为59%和58%，而人类的正确率为55%;它们的情绪类型的正确率分别为58%和64%，而人类的正确率为68%。

“We’re quite confident that when it is higher than chance it is definitely higher than chance,” said Briefer, adding that while ratings might have been high for horses because many participants reported contact with such animals, the relatively low success rate for most species, including humans, could be down to both the brevity of the recordings, and the use of the same type of sound for each pair of vocalisations – such as mooing for cows or whinnying for horses.

Briefer说:“我们很有信心，当它高于概率时，它肯定高于概率。”他补充说，虽然马的评分可能很高，因为许多参与者报告了与这种动物的接触，但包括人类在内的大多数物种的成功率相对较低，可能是因为录音的简短，以及每对发声使用相同类型的声音——比如牛的哞哞声或马的嘶鸣声。

Briefer added participants’ success in rating the type of emotions varied far more than their ability to determine the intensity of the emotions.

Briefer补充说，参与者在评价情绪类型方面的成功程度远远超过了他们确定情绪强度的能力。

“If we take it to the next level, we can very likely easily train people to recognise the sounds,” she said, noting that could help those working closely with animals – from farmers to pet owners – to understand them better.

她说:“如果我们更进一步，我们很可能很容易就能训练人们识别这些声音。”她指出，这可以帮助那些与动物密切接触的人——从农民到宠物主人——更好地理解它们。

“In the past, scientists used to focus on physical health for assessing animal welfare. Nowadays, most of us recognise the large role that emotions play.”

“在过去，科学家们习惯于关注动物的身体健康来评估动物的健康。如今，我们大多数人都认识到情绪发挥着重要作用。”

- 结束 -

本文作者Nicola Davis，由纽约金融学院推荐，文内涉及各种股票，信息，资讯，仅作为投资者进行证券投资的参考和替代，不作为投资建议。投资者自行承担据此进行投资所产生的风险及后果。