Skip to main content
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2015 Jun 13;18:1193–1194. doi: 10.1007/s10071-015-0881-1

Erratum to: Emotions on the loose: emotional contagion and the role of oxytocin in pigs

Inonge Reimert 1,, J Elizabeth Bolhuis 1, Bas Kemp 1, T Bas Rodenburg 2
PMCID: PMC4714008  PMID: 26070872

Erratum to: Anim Cogn (2015) 18:517–532 DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0820-6

The original publication of this article unfortunately contained an error in Table 5. The superscript letters “a, b” were unintentionally omitted under the column head “Without naive pigs present” in the rows of “Standing alert”, “Ears back”, “Tail in curl” and “Tail wagging”. The corrected table is given below.

Table 5.

Behavior of the training pigs during a positive and negative treatment in two situations: without the presence of two naive pen mates and in the presence of two naive pen mates in the test room

Without naive pigs present With naive pigs present Effects1
Positive Negative T2 Positive Negative T2 S TS
Behavior
 Standing alert (% of time) 0.3 ± 0.1a 32.9 ± 3.1b *** 2.8 ± 1.2a 49.0 ± 4.6c *** ** *
 Escape attempts (% of pens)3 0 62.5 *** 0 31.3 * NS
 Play (% of pens)3 100 0 *** 93.8 0 *** NS
 Urinating (% of pens)3 6.3 93.8g *** 0 62.5h *** NS
 Defecating (freq.) 0.7 ± 0.2 4.7 ± 0.5 *** 0.7 ± 0.3 4.5 ± 0.4 *** NS NS
 Exploring treatment door (% of time) 0.5 ± 0.1 3.4 ± 0.7 *** 0.4 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 0.6 *** + NS
Ear posture
 Ears back (% of time) 1.9 ± 0.7a 17.3 ± 4.7b *** 1.3 ± 0.5a 7.3 ± 2.0c ** * +
Tail postures
 Tail in curl (% of time) 87.3 ± 3.5a 99.8 ± 0.2b *** 93.1 ± 2.4c 99.2 ± 0.7b ** NS +
 Tail wagging (% of time) 12.3 ± 3.4a 0.1 ± 0.0b *** 6.7 ± 2.3c 0.2 ± 0.1b *** + +
 Tail low (% of time) 0.4 ± 0.2a 0.1 ± 0.1b NS 0.3 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.5 NS NS NS
Vocalizations (voc.)
 Low-pitched voc. (freq.) 0.2 ± 0.2 24.8 ± 2.9 ***
 High-pitched voc. (% of pens) 0 50.0 **
 Barks (% of pens) 87.5 0 ***

Means with different superscript letters differ significantly (a/b/c: P < 0.05, g/h: P < 0.1)

1Significance of effects of treatment (T), situation (S) and their interaction (TS) is indicated: *** P < 0.001; ** P < 0.01; * P < 0.05; + P < 0.10; NS P ≥ 0.10; − no statistical analysis performed

2These treatment effects belong to the first and second situation, respectively. Treatment effects over both situations were equal to the situation without naive pigs present

3The effect of situation within treatment was significant for urinating within the negative treatment, but not within the positive treatment nor for escape attempts and play

Footnotes

The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s10071-014-0820-6.


Articles from Animal Cognition are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES