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.

Imitation and emulation by dogs using a bidirectional control procedure

Carrie the Dancing Dog

Holly C. Miller, Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves, Thomas R. Zentall

Imitation and emulation by dogs using a bidirectional control procedure

Behavioural Processes, Volume 80, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 109–114

Abstract

A successful procedure for studying imitative behavior in non-humans is the bidirectional control procedure in which observers are exposed to a demonstrator that responds by moving a manipulandum in one of two different directions (e.g., left vs. right). Imitative learning is demonstrated when observers make the response in the direction that they observed it being made. This procedure controls for socially mediated effects (the mere presence of a demonstrator), stimulus enhancement (attention drawn to a manipulandum by its movement), and if an appropriate control is included, emulation (learning how the environment works). Recent research with dogs has found that dogs may not demonstrate imitative learning when the demonstrator is human. In the present research, we found that when odors were controlled for, dogs imitated the direction of a screen-push demonstrated by another dog more than in a control condition in which they observed the screen move independently while another dog was present. Furthermore, we found that dogs would match the direction of screen-push demonstrated by a human and they were equally likely to match the direction in which the screen moved independently while a human was present.

Strategy planning in dogs (Canis familiaris) in a progressive elimination task

Claude Dumas, Dominique Dorais Pagé

Strategy planning in dogs (Canis familiaris) in a progressive elimination task

Behavioural Processes, Volume 73, Issue 1, July 2006, Pages 22–28

Abstract

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were administered a progressive elimination task in which they had to visit and deplete three baited sites. Dogs were brought back to the starting point after each visit to any site whether they had made a correct or an incorrect choice. In Experiment 1 (n = 10) the results revealed that the dogs randomly selected among the sites when they were equidistant from the starting point whereas they relied on the least distance rule when one of sites was closer to the starting point than were the other sites. In Experiment 2 (n = 12), the dogs first chose the left target when angular deviation between adjacent targets varied whether the least angular deviation was on the right of the left. Results are interpreted in terms of Gibson's hypothesis about cooperative hunters. The discussion also emphasizes comparisons with cats (i.e., solitary hunters).

Can your dog read your mind?: Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking.

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

Can your dog read your mind?: Understanding the causes of canine perspective taking.

Learn Behav. 2011 December; 39(4): 289–302. doi: 10.3758/s13420-011-0034-6

Abstract

Prior studies have documented the domestic dog's (Canis lupus familiaris) sensitivity to human attentional state, including a tendency to preferentially beg for food from attentive individuals and an ability to selectively perform forbidden behaviors when humans are not looking. Due to the success of dogs on perspective-taking tasks, some have hypothesized that domestic dogs may have theory of mind, or the ability to infer what other individuals know. Here we provide the first evidence that nondomesticated canids, grey wolves (Canis lupus), are also sensitive to human attentional state under some conditions. We also demonstrate that dogs do not display an undifferentiated sensitivity to all visual cues of attentional state. Rather, dogs are more sensitive to stimuli encountered in their home environment. Some dogs perform poorly on perspective-taking tasks. These findings have important implications for the interpretation of research designed to understand complex social cognition across species.

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.

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use visual attention cues when play signaling

Alexandra Horowitz

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use visual attention cues when play signaling

Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, March–April 2009, Pages 53–54

ABSTRACT

Recent research has shown that dogs are able to recognize varying attentional states of humans ( [Call et al., 2003] and [Schwab and Huber, 2006]) and to use visual attention cues as an indication of a human's perceptual access (Virányi et al., 2006). The present research examines dogs’ use of visual attention cues when communicating with conspecifics in play.

Given dogs’ success at producing and interpreting communicative and attention cues of humans, a logical next step is to examine dogs’ abilities to use attention cues when communicating to conspecifics. The present research looks at 39 bouts of dyadic play in a natural setting. Sequential behaviors and head direction of both dogs were noted throughout the bouts. After coding, analysis considered the use of those behaviors identified as “play signals” (invitations to play) or “attention-getting behaviors” (acts which disrupt the partner's sensory [visual, auditory, tactile] experience) with respect to the visual attention cues of the recipient.

Of the 397 observed play signals, 376 were to a forward-facing audience (z = 5.25, n = 37 bouts, P < 0.001). When play signals were used in combination with attention getters, the actor preceded the play signal with the attention getter more often than the inverse (χ² = 9.52, df = 1, P < 0.01).

Dogs used attention getters more often when their partners were looking away than throughout the bouts (P[away] = 0.82, P[bout] = 0.34; z = 4.93, n = 33 bouts, P < 0.001). Further, dogs used more visual attention getters when their partner had their side to them (z = 1.93, n = 19 bouts, P = 0.0536), and dogs directed more tactile attention getters to dogs who were looking away or distracted (z = 2.37, n = 33 bouts, P = 0.0178). When a partner was socially distracted, tactile attention getters were used more often than visual attention getters (z = 2.22, n = 12 bouts, P = 0.0264).

Play behaviors were differentially used according to the partner's posture. Play signals were sent nearly exclusively to forward-facing conspecifics; attention-getting behaviors were used most often when a playmate was facing away, and before signaling an interest to play. In addition, the mode of attention getter matched the degree of inattentiveness of the playmate; stronger attention getters were used when a playmate was looking away or distracted, and less forceful ones when the partner was facing forward or laterally. The current evidence provides support for the claim that dogs can use behavioral indications of elements of attention in others to guide their own behavior.(Horowitz et al. 2009)