When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner

Canine Olfaction

V Szetei, Á Miklósi, J Topál, V Csányi

When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 83, Issue 2, 5 September 2003, Pages 141–152

Abstract

In two experimental studies, we observed whether dogs rely on olfactory and/or visual information about the hiding place for food in a two-choice test. However, for some dogs direct olfactory (smelling the food) or visual (observing of the food being hidden) experience has been contradicted by human pointing (a well-known communicative gesture for the dog) to the ‘incorrect’ hiding place. We have found that dogs were able to use both olfactory and visual cues efficiently to choose above chance in a choice situation when there was no human cueing. However, in other experimental groups the dogs tended to choose the bowl pointed at by the human. This change in their behavior was more pronounced if they had only olfactory information about the location of the food. In contrast, if they had seen where the food was placed, dogs were more reluctant to follow the pointing gesture, but even so their performance worsened compared to the case in which they saw only the bowl baited.

These results give further support for the hypothesis that dogs regard the pointing gesture as being a communicative act about the placing of the food, but they do not rely on this gesture blindly and they can modify their behavior based on visual experience related directly to the hiding of the food. Further, contrary to general expectations dogs rely in this situation, only to some degree on olfactory cues.

Dogs choose a human informant: Metacognition in canines

Shannon McMahon, Krista Macpherson, William A. Roberts

Dogs choose a human informant: Metacognition in canines

Behavioural Processes, Volume 85, Issue 3, October 2010, Pages 293–298

Abstract

The presence of metacognition in animals has been suggested by the observation that non-human primates will seek out information about the location of a hidden reward before responding. In experiment 1, dogs failed to make an information-seeking response that involved re-positioning themselves in space so that they could view a cue that indicated the location of food. In experiments 2 and 3, dogs were allowed to choose between two people, an informant that pointed to the location of food and a non-informant that provided no information. Dogs showed a clear preference for the informant, even when choice of the informant led to no greater chance of reward than choice of the non-informant. In a procedure that involves human communication, dogs show information-seeking behavior.

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do

Ádám Miklósi, Enikö Kubinyi, József Topál, Márta Gácsi, Zsófia Virányi, Vilmos Csányi

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do

Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 9, 29 April 2003, Pages 763–766

Abstract

The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.

Physical size matters in the domestic dog's (Canis lupus familiaris) ability to use human pointing cues

William S. Helton, Nicole D. Helton

Physical size matters in the domestic dog's (Canis lupus familiaris) ability to use human pointing cues

Behavioural Processes, Volume 85, Issue 1, September 2010, Pages 77–79

Abstract

Researchers have reported differences between breeds of dogs in their ability to utilize human gestures (Wobber et al., 2009). These reports could either be the result of underlying differences in inherent communication abilities or differences in physical capacities amongst breeds. One physical difference between breeds which may make a difference in using visual cues is relative size. Larger dogs should, all other things being equal, have greater inter-ocular distances and this may improve their visual abilities for some tasks. This hypothesis was tested in the present study by comparing the performance of larger (>22.7 kg) and smaller (<22.7 kg) dogs on a pointing choice task. Larger dogs did perform better on this task than smaller dogs (P = .03). Researchers need to be careful when making comparisons between breeds to first consider physical differences before assuming any inherent cognitive differences.

Learning and owner–stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Angel M. Elgier, Adriana Jakovcevic, Alba E. Mustaca, Mariana Bentosela

Learning and owner–stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

Behavioural Processes, Volume 81, Issue 1, May 2009, Pages 44–49

Abstract

Domestic dogs are very successful at following human cues like gazing or pointing to find hidden food in an object choice task. They solve this kind of situation at their first attempts and from early stages of their development and perform better than wolves. Most of the authors proposed that these abilities are a domestication product, and independent from learning processes. There are few systematic studies on the effects of learning on dogs’ communicative skills. We aim to evaluate the effect of extinction and reversal learning procedures on the use of the pointing gesture in an object choice task. The results showed that dogs stopped following the pointing cue in the extinction and that they learned to choose the not pointed container in the reversal learning. Results suggest that instrumental learning plays an important role in interspecific communication mechanisms between humans and dogs. In both experiments for half of the subjects the pointer was the owner and for the rest was a stranger. A differential effect was found: extinction was slower but reversal learning was faster when the owner gave the cue. This data indicates that the relationship of the dog with the person who emits the cue influences performance.

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Helene Pettersson, Juliane Kaminski, Esther Herrmann, Michael Tomasello

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 133, Issues 3–4, September 2011, Pages 235–245

Abstract

Chimpanzees find it easier to locate food when a human prohibits them from going to a certain location than when she indicates that location helpfully. Human children, in contrast, use the cooperative gesture more readily. The question here was whether domestic dogs are more like chimpanzees, in this regard, or more like human children. In our first study we presented 40 dogs with two communicative contexts. In the cooperative context the experimenter informed the subject where food was hidden by pointing helpfully (with a cooperative tone of voice). In the competitive context the experimenter extended her arm towards the correct location in a prohibitive manner, palm of hand out (uttering a forbidding command in a prohibitive tone of voice). Dogs were successful in the cooperative condition (P = 0.005) but chose randomly in the competitive condition (P = 0.221). The second study independently varied the two characteristics of the communicative gesture (the gesture itself and the tone of voice). In addition to replicating dogs’ better performance with the cooperative gestures, this study suggests that tone of voice and context had more effect than type of gesture. In the context of food acquisition, domestic dogs, like human children, seem more prepared to use human gestures when they are given cooperatively.

Breed differences in dogs sensitivity to human points: A meta-analysis

Nicole R. Dorey, Monique A.R. Udell, Clive D.L. Wynne

Breed differences in dogs sensitivity to human points: A meta-analysis

Behavioural Processes, Volume 81, Issue 3, July 2009, Pages 409–415

Abstract

The last decade has seen a substantial increase in research on the behavioral and cognitive abilities of pet dogs, Canis familiaris. The most commonly used experimental paradigm is the object-choice task in which a dog is given a choice of two containers and guided to the reinforced object by human pointing gestures. We review here studies of this type and attempt a meta-analysis of the available data. In the meta-analysis breeds of dogs were grouped into the eight categories of the American Kennel Club, and into four clusters identified by Parker and Ostrander [Parker, H.G., Ostrander, E.A., 2005. Canine genomics and genetics: running with the pack. PLoS Genet. 1, 507–513] on the basis of a genetic analysis. No differences in performance between breeds categorized in either fashion were identified. Rather, all dog breeds appear to be similarly and highly successful in following human points to locate desired food. We suggest this result could be due to the paucity of data available in published studies, and the restricted range of breeds tested.

The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks

Monique A.R. Udell, Nicole R. Dorey, Clive D.L. Wynne

The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks

Animal Behaviour, Volume 79, Issue 3, March 2010, Pages 717–725

Abstract
A decade of research on domestic dogs' responsiveness to human actions has led some to believe that all members of the species Canis familiaris possess a human-like social cognition not shared by their nondomesticated relatives. However, comparative studies on diverse populations of domestic dog are lacking, making species-wide generalizations premature. In this study we present the performance of one under-represented population, stray dogs living in shelters, on a human-guided object-choice task. Unlike pet dogs, shelter dogs universally failed to follow a momentary distal point to a target location in initial tests, although they were able to follow a simpler form of human point on the same task. Furthermore, the majority of subjects learned to follow a momentary distal point to a target when given additional training trials (experiment 2). Dogs' sensitivity to human gestures may not be entirely explained by phylogenetic variables; rather, the interactions between genetic, developmental and experiential variables must be considered.

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Helene Pettersson, Juliane Kaminski, Esther Herrmann, Michael Tomasello

Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs

Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 133, Issues 3–4, September 2011, Pages 235–245

Abstract

Chimpanzees find it easier to locate food when a human prohibits them from going to a certain location than when she indicates that location helpfully. Human children, in contrast, use the cooperative gesture more readily. The question here was whether domestic dogs are more like chimpanzees, in this regard, or more like human children. In our first study we presented 40 dogs with two communicative contexts. In the cooperative context the experimenter informed the subject where food was hidden by pointing helpfully (with a cooperative tone of voice). In the competitive context the experimenter extended her arm towards the correct location in a prohibitive manner, palm of hand out (uttering a forbidding command in a prohibitive tone of voice). Dogs were successful in the cooperative condition (P = 0.005) but chose randomly in the competitive condition (P = 0.221). The second study independently varied the two characteristics of the communicative gesture (the gesture itself and the tone of voice). In addition to replicating dogs’ better performance with the cooperative gestures, this study suggests that tone of voice and context had more effect than type of gesture. In the context of food acquisition, domestic dogs, like human children, seem more prepared to use human gestures when they are given cooperatively.