• Aucun résultat trouvé

The role of human voice in the development of human-piglet relationship

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "The role of human voice in the development of human-piglet relationship"

Copied!
12
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

HAL Id: hal-02798676

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02798676

Submitted on 5 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

The role of human voice in the development of human-piglet relationship

Sandy Bensoussan, Raphaëlle Tigeot, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Céline Tallet

To cite this version:

Sandy Bensoussan, Raphaëlle Tigeot, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Céline Tallet. The role of human voice in the development of human-piglet relationship. 46. Colloque annuel de la Société Française pour l’Etude du Comportement animal (SFECA), Mar 2016, Caen, France. �hal-02798676�

(2)

The role of human voice in the development of

human-piglet relationship.

Sandy Bensoussan, Raphaëlle Tigeot, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Céline Tallet

(3)

Background and Objectives

 Studying relationship

 evaluating interactions

 Animals’ senses

 determining their Umwelt, (Von Uexküll, 2006)

Interactions: visual, tactile

 auditory ?

(Stone, 2010; Kalmus, 1955; McComb et al, 2014)

(Jones, 1993, Edwards et al, 2013; Markowitz et al, 1998; Seabrook and Bartle , 1992 )

(Hinde, 1976; Estep and Hetts, 1992)

(4)

Background and Objectives

 Social animals

 Communicative abilities

 Hearing sensitivity

 sensitivity to human voice ?

 Sensitivity to human visual and tactile interactions

 sensitivity human presence ?

(Graves, 1984)

(Tallet, 2013; Heffner et Heffner, 1990; Titze, 2000)

(postures: Miura et al, 1996; approach: Hemsworth et al, 1986; tactile: Hemsworth et al, 1987) 42 Hz to 40,5 kHz 80 Hz to 1,4 kHz

1. Assessing piglets’ response to human presence in their living environment, with or without vocal stimuli

2. Assessing treatments effects on human’s attractiveness in a novel environment

(5)

Material and Method

Talking to Presence Control

2 repetitions : 90 weaned piglets

3 groups : 15 piglets/ group/ repetition

5 min/ day for 3 weeks

(6)

Material and Method

 Test 1:

Voice broadcast Background sound

Test 2:

Background sound

Median zone Experimenter zone

Intermediary zone

Remote zone

(7)

Results and Discussion

 Proportions of time in the different zones

 experimenter zone

 remote zone

Test 1

0,26 0,29

0,32

0,54 0,42

0,35

> >

< <

Control Presence

Talking to

± 0,01

± 0,01

(8)

Results and discussion

 Latency of investigation of the experimenter

 Look at the experimenter

 Latency

 Duration

Test 1

4,9 ± 0,3 s 18,6 ± 1,0 s

14,4 ± 0,5 s

= >

61,7 ± 1,7 s 28,3 ± 0,7 s

19,3 ± 0,5 s

= <

Control Presence

Talking to

170,7 ± 3,5 s 44,7 ± 2,6 s

50,9 ± 3,0 s

= <

Chicks

(Jones, 1993),

piglets

(Gonyou et al, 1986, Hemsworth et al, 1981)

(9)

Results and discussion

Duration of test area investigation

Test 1

163,6 ± 2,0 s 204,2 ± 1,3 s

217,9 ± 1,4 s

= >

Presence

Talking to Control

↗ Dogs’ exploration in presence of a their owner vs

stranger

(Prato-Previde et al, 2003)

(10)

Results and discussion

 Human presence exposure  the fear of the experimenter

 Attraction hypothesis ?

 YES: investigation latency < previous data (Gonyou et al, 1986; Tallet et al, 2014)

due to experimenter’s passivity (Hemsworth et al, 1986)

 BUT: = duration of investigation in all treatments

 conflict of interest : investigation of the experimenter vs exploration of the test area (Tallet et al, 2014)

 habituation to the stimulus (Tallet et al, 2014)

 Attractive but not enough

 Voice role ? Deprivation of voice (test 2)

  interest in staying close to the experimenter

  interest in communicating with her (Manteuffel et al, 2004)

(11)

CONCLUSION

 Human presence exposure with or without voice broadcasting  fear of the experimenter

 No  of the experimenter’s attractiveness with the voice

 the voice might take part in the

experimenter recognition

(12)

Thank you for your attention.

Références

Documents relatifs

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des

Please cite this article as: Bensoussan S, Tigeot R, Lemasson A, Meunier-Salaün MChristine, Tallet C, Domestic piglets Sus scrofa domestica are attentive to human voice and able

Les décisions de relèvement du SMIC sont, elles, fonction de l’indice du salaire horaire de base des ouvriers et de l’augmentation de l’indice mensuel des prix à la consommation

We propose that the common ground of multiple lines of evidence from human studies points to a role of the mediodorsal thalamic nucleus in reg- ulating prefrontal activity

-...C'est sûr que je la connais la petite, avec ses yeux bleus, ses longs cheveux comme des blés et son allure de sauvageonne....Elle n'a pas pu aller bien loin, elle

Applied ethology 2014 281 Inluence of prenatal experience with human voice on the neonatal behavioural reaction to human voices with diferent emotion.. Céline Tallet 1 ,

Behavioural aspects of integration of young calves in dynamic groups fed with automatic milk feeding system. Nadège Ferro-Famil, Céline Tallet, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün,

Samuel Collin, Sandy Bensoussan, Valérie Courboulay, Florence Kling-Eveillard, Marie-Christine Meunier-Salaün, Céline Tallet?. To cite