Cue the Cat: The Visual Dimension of Flavor Preference

I. Introduction

II. History & Methods

III. Representative projects in progress:

I. Licking & Liking

II. Palatability & Decisiveness

1 confidential

Nancy E. Rawson, Ph.D.Senior DirectorBasic Research & Innovationnrawson@afbinternational.com

What is Behavior?

Behavior:

the actions and reactions of whole

organisms, including covert actions

like thinking and feeling

Learning:

acquisition, maintenance, and

change of an organism’s behavior as

a result of life'me events → How it

interacts with its environment

Why Measure Behavior?

If you know what to look for, animals tell you very quickly and

very precisely What they like and Why they like it!

Better insight into food choice by pets

Discriminating = drawing fine distinctions

Reveal behaviors owners may interpret as “liking”

Taste reactivity

3 confidential

Behavioral Research: Taste Reactivity

Outcome:

• Identify ‘liking’ or ‘rejecting’

• Identify responses that owners

may interpret as “enjoyment”

Methods:

• Acquire video under controlled conditions

• Train coders to analyze videos with high reliability

• Stimulus delivery method adapted to species, question

Video analysis of oro-facial and body movements & sequences

4 confidential

Taste Reactivity: Characteristic responses to positive/negative taste stimuli

e.g., lips pursed, eyes neutral/relaxed, licking lips

e.g., open mouth, furrowed brow, lip corners down

Sucrose

Quinine

olive lemon

vegemite

Aim: Describe comparable reactions in cats and dogs

Taste Quality vs. Taste Experience: Positive/Negative

Goals

Apply taste reactivity methods to:

• Understand what flavor stimuli cats respond to

positively or negatively.

• Reveal the sensory responses that are driving flavor

preference.

• Identify flavor systems that promote behaviors that

are interpreted as ‘liking’ by pet owner, without

promoting over-consumption.

7

� In-home tests

� 2 trials/test; 2 tests/cat

� Each trial: 10 min exposure, 5 min post-exposure

� One food at a time:

• NF = normal food

• XF = experimental food

oMFF= more flavorful food

oLFF= less flavorful food

Recorded: total duration, frequencies,

sequences of patterns

Taste Reactivity in Cats: Van den Bos et. al, 2000

Group State Fed Order of presentation

A (n=5) satiated 1-3x/day NF then XF (MFF or LFF)

B (n=8) hungry 1-3x/day XF (MFF or LFF) then NF

C (n=10) satiated ad lib XF (MFF or LFF) then NF

Sequence Starts with Contained

MFF

Consumption

lick/sniff feeding bowl (or sniff

floor)

oral and grooming

behavior

LFF Refusal lick/sniff food lick nose

LFF Consumptionlick/sniff feeding bowl (or sniff

floor)grooming & lick nose

Results – Van den Bos et al., 2000

• Behaviors correlated with consumption

vs. rejection.

• In hungry cats, LFF produced reactions

similar to MFF.

• When satiated, MFF produced

reactions similar to LFF.

• When cats chose to eat the LFF,

sequences were similar to those

observed when the MFF consumed.

Metabolic state influences responses!

Results – Van den Bos et al., 2000

• “Palatability” as we define it: • Intake Ratio = amount consumed of A/(A+B)

is not a characteristic of the diet – it is a

behavioral response to the diet.

• Taste reactivity represents more subtle,

innate and immediate components of this

behavioral response.

Implications

Example

Behavioral Project

“Taste reactivity and behavioral responses in cats

to preferred and avoided taste stimuli”

Master’s thesis project:

Mikaela Hanson

Linköping University,

Sweden

July - December, 2014

Aims

•Identify threshold concentrations for preference or avoidance

for two taste stimuli relative to water.

•Identify behaviors that distinguish stimuli that are preferred vs.

those that are avoided.

•Does mixing the preferred and avoided flavors evoke both

behavioral patterns or is one type dominant?

Methods

Testing Conditions:

Singly housed testing, clear door for viewing.

Tested at the same times in the AM and PM.

Exposures to same stimulus separated by at least 1 day

5 minute trial.

Cats:

Healthy adult, normal weight cats.

Pre-adapted to transporting and testing conditions.

Trained to drink from the spout.

Validated with a highly palatable flavor vs. water

15

Stimuli

•Simple taste solutions in water.

•5 Concentrations, tested from low to high.

•Stimuli thought to be positive, negative or neutral.

•Mixture of positive, negative at effective

concentrations

•Tested as paired comparisons:

• Tastant vs. Water

•pH, viscosity equal

16

Video Data acquisition & analysis

17

• Video coded by blinded, trained observers

• Coding scheme developed based on pilot studies

• Behaviors classified as “point” vs. “continuous”

• Point behaviors analyzed for: frequency, sequence,

location

• Continuous behaviors analyzed for: duration,

sequence, location

Healthy, adult, normal weight

Adapt to the testing arena

Handling and transport

Validated with a positive flavor

Tested for sidedness

14 cats completed the study

Lickometer, intake data

500 video records

Cats: Adaptation & Validation What was I supposed to do in here again?

Testing setup

•First lick, number of licks and volume consumed

•Lick ratio and Intake ratio calculated

•Video recording acquired for analysis

19 confidential

Lickometer data for a positive taste stimulus:

Savory (amino acid) taste vs. water

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Lick

Ra

tio

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

Me

an

lic

ks

Amino acid Water

20 confidential

Behaviors – What are we looking for?

22

Behavioral Analysis Chart

23

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Total Frequency of Point Behaviors: Series 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

Sample Point Behavior Comparison: Series 3

0 50 100 150 200 250

Lip lick (microlick)

Nose lick

Whisker lick

Paws cage

Rubs with body

Rubs with face

Scratch

Shake body

Shake head

Flinch/Startle

Tongue protrusion

Flehmen

Miscellaneous

Hunch

Head Twist

Tongue Protrusion Gape

Air Lick/ Pre-Drink Lick

Mouth Smack

Paw Shake

Paw Curl

Negative Positive

25

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

Frequency Ratio (FR) of Point Behaviors: Series 3

FR = frequency with stimulus A/total frequency

Analysis continues….

• ~250/500 video records have been coded

• Questions:

• Are there behaviors that correlate with lickometer and

intake data:

• Common across cats

• Specific to individual cats

• Do behaviors in response to the mixture:

• represent one type or a combination of response types seen with

the single stimuli?

• include responses not seen with single stimuli?

27

Application to feeding behavior:

decisiveness

28

Rapid preference screening: method development

Individual cats

Familiar setting

32 trials total (9 cats)

5 palatants vs control

Trial duration = 1 feeding bout

Recorded: first approach, first choice,

Analyze: EAT/sniff sequence, # switches

29 confidential

Example of Trial

(EAT/sniff sequence: a b A)

CARP ppt 60390.Gaga.abA.wmv

Example of Coding

31 confidential

Gaga

Sniffed B, Ate B, never went to A

Sniffed A, Ate A

Sniffed B, sniffed A, ate A => choice based on odor alone

“Switcher” alternated between A and B – no clear preference

Iggy

Later sniffed B, ate B Hendrix

Duran

3 min

Gaga clearly made a choice between A and B, and preferred A

Iggy ate more of B, but never tasted A.

Eat/Sniff Duration – test product

32 confidential

Intake Ratio and Decisiveness:

33

0 g 100 g

2 2 1 2 2

0 0 0 0 0

IR = 0.75

Switches = 9

Decisiveness = 0

0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1

Switches = 0

Decisiveness = 1.0

IR = 0.7575 g A 25 g B

Five meals

Cat B

Cat A

Average IR = 0.75: A > BAverage Decisiveness = 0.50: A = B

Additional observations:

Fewer switches = More Decisive

More Decisive = Clearer

Preference91% agreement between first

choice and first approach (sniff).

Results can reveal how the diet

performs across multiple meals

within a day.

Added dimension to interpretation of

IR data

34 confidential

Going forward

• How does flavor impact decisiveness?

• First choice = most enticing, but does

the taste live up to the odor?• Results guide product design for

improved performance.

• What specific behaviors are owners

using to guide their purchasing?• Suggest/support new marketing

strategies.

35 confidential

Thanks for listening!

36