Abstract
Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition. We assessed motor impulsivity in female chickens (n = 20) during a Go/No-Go task where birds had to peck (Go) or inhibit pecks (No-Go) appropriately to obtain a food reward, depending on visual cues in an operant chamber. Birds were selected to show divergent FP performance based on their genotype (high predisposition for FP or unselected control line) and phenotype (peckers or non-peckers). Genotype, phenotype, and its interaction did not affect the number of pre-cue responses, percentage of responses during No-Go cues (false alarms), or efficiency (number of rewards over number of responses). We present the first documentation of a Go/No-Go task to measure the ability of birds genetically and phenotypically selected for FP activity to inhibit a prepotent motor response. Results indicate that the repetitive motor action of FP does not reflect impulsivity and is not genetically linked to a lack of behavioural inhibition as measured in a Go/No-Go task.
Highlights
Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition
We investigated the association between repetitive FP and motor impulsivity in birds that were selected for high FP behaviour (HFP birds) and those from a control line (CON birds)
We hypothesized that FP is an impulse-driven behaviour that may be caused by www.nature.com/scientificreports neurobiological dysfunction with a genetic component[11], and that it is similar to human psychiatric disorders that display repetitive behaviour (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD))
Summary
Repetitive feather pecking (FP) where birds peck and pull out feathers of conspecifics could reflect motor impulsivity through a lack of behavioural inhibition. Results indicate that the repetitive motor action of FP does not reflect impulsivity and is not genetically linked to a lack of behavioural inhibition as measured in a Go/No-Go task. Motor impulsivity can be tested through Go/No-Go tasks which are applied in humans and in rodent models[20,24] These tasks evaluate the ability of inhibitory control mechanisms to suppress rapid, conditioned motor responses (i.e., prepotent responses) allowing cognitive mechanisms to guide behaviour[20,25]. In this context, a Go cue would require the animal to perform a response, while a No-Go cue would require the animal to inhibit the same response. Impulsive animals are unable to accurately or fully execute action inhibitory control, and would be impaired in Go/No-Go task performance[20,26]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call