The assessment of positive emotional states in animals has been advanced considerably through the use of judgement bias testing. JBT methods have now been reported in a range of species. Generally, these tests show good validity as ascertained through use of corroborating methods of affective state determination. However, published reports of judgement bias task findings can be counter-intuitive and show high inter-individual variability. It is proposed that these outcomes may arise as a result of inherent inter- and intra-individual differences as a result of biology. This review discusses the potential impact of sex and reproductive cycles, social status, genetics, early life experience and personality on judgement bias test outcomes. We also discuss some aspects of test design that may interact with these factors to further confound test interpretation. There is some evidence that a range of biological factors affect judgement bias test outcomes, but in many cases this evidence is limited and needs further characterisation to reproduce the findings and confirm directions of effect. It is our proposition that researchers should consider dedicated study on these factors and their impact on judgement biasing. This is needed to confirm effect and investigate mechanisms. Alternately, consideration and reporting of these factors in JBT studies through incorporation in statistical analyses will provide much needed additional data on their impact. These actions will enhance the validity and practical applicability of the JBT for welfare assessment.

Zoos are increasingly putting in place formalized animal welfare assessment programs to allow monitoring of welfare over time, as well as to aid in resource prioritization. These programs tend to rely on assessment tools that incorporate resource-based and observational animal- focused measures since it is rarely feasible to obtain measures of physiology in zoo-housed animals. A range of assessment tools are available which commonly have a basis in the Five Domains framework. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted to bring together recent studies examining welfare assessment methods in zoo animals. A summary of these methods is provided with advantages and limitations of the approach es presented. We then highlight practical considerations with respect to implementation of these tools into practice, for example scoring schemes, weighting of criteria, and innate animal factors for consideration. It is concluded that would be value in standardizing guidelines for development of welfare assessment tools since zoo accreditation bodies rarely prescribe these. There is also a need to develop taxon or species- specific assessment tools to inform welfare management.

Animals’ facial expressions have been widely used as a readout for emotion. Scientific interest in the facial expressions of laboratory animals has centered primarily on negative experiences, such as pain, experienced as a result of scientific research procedures. Recent attempts to standardize evaluation of facial expressions associated with pain in laboratory animals has culminated in the development of “grimace scales”. In the context of laboratory animals, these have been developed and evaluated for mice, rats, rabbits, sheep, and ferrets. The prevention or relief of pain in laboratory animals is a fundamental requirement for in vivo research to satisfy community expectations. However, to date it appears that the grimace scales have not seen widespread implementation as clinical pain assessment techniques in biomedical research. In this review, we discuss some of the barriers to implementation of the scales in clinical laboratory animal medicine, progress made in automation of collection, and suggest avenues for future research.