{"doi":"10.2460/javma.2000.217.1154","title":"Effects of a synthetic facial pheromone on behavior of cats","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Objective</jats:bold>—To evaluate the effects of a synthetic\nfeline facial pheromone (FFP) on behavior and food\nintake of healthy versus clinically ill cats.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Design</jats:bold>—Original study.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Animals</jats:bold>—20 cats were used in each of 2 studies. In\neach study, 7 cats were considered healthy, and 13\ncats were determined to be clinically ill.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Procedure</jats:bold>—In study 1, cats were assigned either\nto exposure to FFP (treated group; 4 healthy, 6 ill\ncats) or to exposure to the vehicle (70% ethanol\nsolution; control group; 3 healthy, 7 ill cats). Cats\nwere placed in a cage containing a small cotton\ntowel that had been sprayed with FFP or vehicle 30\nminutes previously. Cats were then videotaped for\n125 minutes, and food intake was measured during\nthis period. Videotapes were scored at 5-minute\nintervals for various behaviors. In study 2, cats were\ncategorized in 1 of 2 groups; group 1 (2 healthy, 8 ill\ncats) had a cat carrier placed in their cages, and\ngroup 2 (5 healthy, 5 ill cats) did not. All cats were\nexposed to FFP, and 24-hour food intake was measured.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Results</jats:bold>—Differences between behaviors of healthy\nversus clinically ill cats were not identified. In the first\nstudy, significant increases in grooming and interest\nin food were found in cats exposed to FFP compared\nwith vehicle. For all cats, significant positive correlations\nwere detected between grooming and facial\nrubbing, walking and facial rubbing, interest in food\nand facial rubbing, eating and facial rubbing, grooming\nand interest in food, and grooming and eating. In\nthe second study, 24-hour food intake was significantly\ngreater in cats exposed to FFP and the cat carrier,\ncompared with cats exposed to FFP alone.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Conclusions and Clinical Relevance</jats:bold>—Results suggest\nthat exposure to FFP may be useful to increase\nfood intake of hospitalized cats. (<jats:italic>J Am Vet Med Assoc</jats:italic>\n2000;217:1154–1156)</jats:p>","journal":"Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association","year":2000,"id":592879,"datarank":6.919344431865851,"base_score":4.890349128221754,"endowment":4.890349128221754,"self_citation_contribution":0.7335523692332632,"citation_network_contribution":6.185792062632588,"self_endowment_contribution":0.7335523692332632,"citer_contribution":6.185792062632588,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":132,"citer_count":130,"citers_with_citation_signal":92,"citers_with_endowment":92,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1517255,"name":"Elizabeth S. Steigerwald","orcid":null,"position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":496938,"name":"C. A. Tony Buffington","orcid":"0000-0003-4477-7690","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":1517254,"name":"Cerissa A. Griffith","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"Effects of a synthetic facial pheromone on behavior of cats","abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Objective</jats:bold>—To evaluate the effects of a synthetic\nfeline facial pheromone (FFP) on behavior and food\nintake of healthy versus clinically ill cats.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Design</jats:bold>—Original study.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Animals</jats:bold>—20 cats were used in each of 2 studies. In\neach study, 7 cats were considered healthy, and 13\ncats were determined to be clinically ill.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Procedure</jats:bold>—In study 1, cats were assigned either\nto exposure to FFP (treated group; 4 healthy, 6 ill\ncats) or to exposure to the vehicle (70% ethanol\nsolution; control group; 3 healthy, 7 ill cats). Cats\nwere placed in a cage containing a small cotton\ntowel that had been sprayed with FFP or vehicle 30\nminutes previously. Cats were then videotaped for\n125 minutes, and food intake was measured during\nthis period. Videotapes were scored at 5-minute\nintervals for various behaviors. In study 2, cats were\ncategorized in 1 of 2 groups; group 1 (2 healthy, 8 ill\ncats) had a cat carrier placed in their cages, and\ngroup 2 (5 healthy, 5 ill cats) did not. All cats were\nexposed to FFP, and 24-hour food intake was measured.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Results</jats:bold>—Differences between behaviors of healthy\nversus clinically ill cats were not identified. In the first\nstudy, significant increases in grooming and interest\nin food were found in cats exposed to FFP compared\nwith vehicle. For all cats, significant positive correlations\nwere detected between grooming and facial\nrubbing, walking and facial rubbing, interest in food\nand facial rubbing, eating and facial rubbing, grooming\nand interest in food, and grooming and eating. In\nthe second study, 24-hour food intake was significantly\ngreater in cats exposed to FFP and the cat carrier,\ncompared with cats exposed to FFP alone.</jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t<jats:p>\n\t\t\t\t\t<jats:bold>Conclusions and Clinical Relevance</jats:bold>—Results suggest\nthat exposure to FFP may be useful to increase\nfood intake of hospitalized cats. (<jats:italic>J Am Vet Med Assoc</jats:italic>\n2000;217:1154–1156)</jats:p>","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"11043684","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":null,"authors":[],"funders":[],"total_grants":0,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[],"oa_status":"bronze","license":null,"oa_locations":[{"url":"https://avmajournals.avma.org/downloadpdf/journals/javma/217/8/javma.2000.217.1154.pdf","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/217/8/javma.2000.217.1154.xml","host_type":"publisher"},{"url":"https://avmajournals.avma.org/downloadpdf/journals/javma/217/8/javma.2000.217.1154.xml","host_type":"publisher"}],"fields_of_study":[],"mesh_terms":["Animals","Cats","Cat Diseases","Pheromones","Prospective Studies","Double-Blind Method","Behavior, Animal","Grooming","Motor Activity","Eating","Videotape Recording"],"keywords":[],"sdg_mappings":[],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-07-26T16:02:15.577426Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}