Experimenters' assumptions and animals' perceptions: observer bias in temporal-discrimination tasks

In laboratory studies of animal behaviour, interpretations of how a task is learned or of which stimulus characteristics are attended to are, ultimately, inferences. So, there is always potential for experimenter assumptions to be at odds with what an animal learns from a task. The study of choice biases has been fertile ground for revealing another kind of bias: observer bias. This paper reviews a series of studies featuring a matching-to-sample task where, following the presentation of a stimulus, a choice had to be made between two options. The option to be chosen depended on the duration of the initial stimulus. An intertrial interval traditionally separates trials and, in a variation of the task, a delay is introduced before choice. In some cases, task components traditionally considered secondary (such as the intertrial interval) actually become part of what the animals learn from the task. Not only that, but individual animals may also differ in how they use different task components. In addition, delays appear to be interpreted differently across tasks. This paper presents attempts to control for confounds and to clarify what is learned in each task. Biases and task limitations highlight the importance of employing a variety of procedures to study a given phenomenon. • In laboratory tasks, the perceptions of experimenters and animals may not coincide. • Choice biases are commonly found in temporal discrimination tasks. • These biases suggest that animals attend to cues not predicted by the experimenter. • Observer bias may lead to misinterpretations of the animals' behaviour.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Animal Behaviour
Published
2026-01-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2026.123466
Primary Topic
Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Experimenters' assumptions and animals' perceptions: observer bias in temporal-discrimination tasks

C. Pinto
Animal Behaviour
Memory and Neural Mechanisms
article

Experimenters' assumptions and animals' perceptions: observer bias in temporal-discrimination tasks

C. Pinto
article en

Abstract

In laboratory studies of animal behaviour, interpretations of how a task is learned or of which stimulus characteristics are attended to are, ultimately, inferences. So, there is always potential for experimenter assumptions to be at odds with what an animal learns from a task. The study of choice biases has been fertile ground for revealing another kind of bias: observer bias. This paper reviews a series of studies featuring a matching-to-sample task where, following the presentation of a stimulus, a choice had to be made between two options. The option to be chosen depended on the duration of the initial stimulus. An intertrial interval traditionally separates trials and, in a variation of the task, a delay is introduced before choice. In some cases, task components traditionally considered secondary (such as the intertrial interval) actually become part of what the animals learn from the task. Not only that, but individual animals may also differ in how they use different task components. In addition, delays appear to be interpreted differently across tasks. This paper presents attempts to control for confounds and to clarify what is learned in each task. Biases and task limitations highlight the importance of employing a variety of procedures to study a given phenomenon. • In laboratory tasks, the perceptions of experimenters and animals may not coincide. • Choice biases are commonly found in temporal discrimination tasks. • These biases suggest that animals attend to cues not predicted by the experimenter. • Observer bias may lead to misinterpretations of the animals' behaviour.

Animal BehaviourVol. 233
University of Minho (PT)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Memory and Neural Mechanisms
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.