Applied Animal Behaviour Science | 2019

Effect of high levels of background noise on dog responses to a routine physical examination in a veterinary setting

 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract


Abstract Veterinary visits result in behavioural and physiological signs of fear and stress for many companion dogs. There are a number of factors that likely contribute to this response, but little is known about possible effects of the acoustic environment. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of elevated levels of common veterinary background noises on fear-related responses in dogs during a routine physical examination in a veterinary setting. Testing took place in an examination room at a veterinary clinic and involved 33 owned companion dogs. All dogs received a standardized physical examination where each dog was either presented with no additional noise (n\u2009=\u200916, control), or a pre-recorded noise track that included the sounds of people talking, dogs barking, and metal doors clanging (n\u2009=\u200917). This noise track was played back with a peak sound level of 68.0\u2009dB, which is comparable to levels previously recorded in clinic settings. The dogs’ behavioural responses (lip licking, yawning, reduced posture, avoidance, vocalizing, trembling) were scored from video by a blinded observer for each stage of the physical examination (i.e., head exam, lymph node palpation, body palpation, temperature assessment, heart rate assessment, and respiratory rate assessment). In addition, willingness to approach the examiner was assessed before and after the examination. For behavioural measures, generalized mixed models and Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess the effects of noise, exam phase, sex, and age, with dog as a random effect. For temperature, a general linear model was used to assess the effects of noise, sex, and age, and the remaining physiological measures were assessed using t-tests. Only respiratory rate was increased with exposure to background noise (F1,31\u2009=\u20096.74, p\u2009=\u20090.0143); no other responses were affected. However, lip licking (F5,65\u2009=\u20094.04, p\u2009=\u20090.003), avoidance (F5,158\u2009=\u20096.36, p

Volume 214
Pages 64-71
DOI 10.1016/J.APPLANIM.2019.03.009
Language English
Journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science

Full Text