E. D. Stevens

Bio: E. D. Stevens is an academic researcher from University of Prince Edward Island. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 188 citations.

Can fish really feel pain

Abstract: We review studies claiming that fish feel pain and find deficiencies in the methods used for pain identification, particularly for distinguishing unconscious detection of injurious stimuli (nociception) from conscious pain. Results were also frequently misinterpreted and not replicable, so claims that fish feel pain remain unsubstantiated. Comparable problems exist in studies of invertebrates. In contrast, an extensive literature involving surgeries with fishes shows normal feeding and activity immediately or soon after surgery. C fiber nociceptors, the most prevalent type in mammals and responsible for excruciating pain in humans, are rare in teleosts and absent in elasmobranchs studied to date. A-delta nociceptors, not yet found in elasmobranchs, but relatively common in teleosts, likely serve rapid, less noxious injury signaling, triggering escape and avoidance responses. Clearly, fishes have survived well without the full range of nociception typical of humans or other mammals, a circumstance according well with the absence of the specialized cortical regions necessary for pain in humans. We evaluate recent claims for consciousness in fishes, but find these claims lack adequate supporting evidence, neurological feasibility, or the likelihood that consciousness would be adaptive. Even if fishes were conscious, it is unwarranted to assume that they possess a human-like capacity for pain. Overall, the behavioral and neurobiological evidence reviewed shows fish responses to nociceptive stimuli are limited and fishes are unlikely to experience pain.

Learning and Memory

Abstract: Experimental Psychology Its Scope and Method. IV. Learning and Memory. By Jean-Francois Le Ny, G. De Montpellier, G. Oleron and Cesar Flores. Translated by Louise Elkington. Edited by P. Fraisse and Jean Piaget. Pp. viii + 376. (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, April 1970.) 80s.

Two distinct neuronal networks mediate the awareness of environment and of self

Abstract: Evidence from functional neuroimaging studies on resting state suggests that there are two distinct anticorrelated cortical systems that mediate conscious awareness: an "extrinsic" system that encompasses lateral fronto-parietal areas and has been linked with processes of external input (external awareness), and an "intrinsic" system which encompasses mainly medial brain areas and has been associated with internal processes (internal awareness). The aim of our study was to explore the neural correlates of resting state by providing behavioral and neuroimaging data from healthy volunteers. With no a priori assumptions, we first determined behaviorally the relationship between external and internal awareness in 31 subjects. We found a significant anticorrelation between external and internal awareness with a mean switching frequency of 0.05 Hz (range: 0.01-0.1 Hz). Interestingly, this frequency is similar to BOLD fMRI slow oscillations. We then evaluated 22 healthy volunteers in an fMRI paradigm looking for brain areas where BOLD activity correlated with "internal" and "external" scores. Activation of precuneus/posterior cingulate, anterior cingulate/mesiofrontal cortices, and parahippocampal areas ("intrinsic system") was linearly linked to intensity of internal awareness, whereas activation of lateral fronto-parietal cortices ("extrinsic system") was linearly associated with intensity of external awareness.

Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research

Abstract: Use of Fishes in Research Committee members: J. A. Jenkins, Chair, H. L. Bart, Jr., J. D. Bowker, P. R. Bowser, J. R. MacMillan, J. G. Nickum, J. D. Rose, P. W. Sorensen, and G. W. Whitledge on behalf of the American Fisheries Society; J. W. Rachlin and B. E. Warkentine on behalf of the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists; and H. L. Bart on behalf of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists

Fish Intelligence, Sentience and Ethics

Abstract: Fish are one of the most highly utilised vertebrate taxa by humans; they are harvested from wild stocks as part of global fishing industries, grown under intensive aquaculture conditions, are the most common pet and are widely used for scientific research. But fish are seldom afforded the same level of compassion or welfare as warm-blooded vertebrates. Part of the problem is the large gap between people’s perception of fish intelligence and the scientific reality. This is an important issue because public perception guides government policy. The perception of an animal’s intelligence often drives our decision whether or not to include them in our moral circle. From a welfare perspective, most researchers would suggest that if an animal is sentient, then it can most likely suffer and should therefore be offered some form of formal protection. There has been a debate about fish welfare for decades which centres on the question of whether they are sentient or conscious. The implications for affording the same level of protection to fish as other vertebrates are great, not least because of fishing-related industries. Here, I review the current state of knowledge of fish cognition starting with their sensory perception and moving on to cognition. The review reveals that fish perception and cognitive abilities often match or exceed other vertebrates. A review of the evidence for pain perception strongly suggests that fish experience pain in a manner similar to the rest of the vertebrates. Although scientists cannot provide a definitive answer on the level of consciousness for any non-human vertebrate, the extensive evidence of fish behavioural and cognitive sophistication and pain perception suggests that best practice would be to lend fish the same level of protection as any other vertebrate.