A comparative analysis of animals' understanding of the human pointing gesture

The use of a human's location and social cues by Asian elephants in an object-choice task

Asian elephants have previously demonstrated an ability to follow olfactory cues, but not human-provided social cues like pointing and gazing or orienting to find hidden food (Plotnik et al. in PLoS One 8:e61174, 2013; Anim Behav 88:91-98, 2014). In a study conducted with African elephants, however, elephants were able to follow a combination of these social cues to find food, even when the experimenter's position was counter to the location of the food. The authors of the latter study argued that the differences in the two species' performances might have been due to methodological differences in the study designs (Smet and Byrne in Curr Biol 23(20):2033-2037, 2013). To further investigate the reasons for these potential differences, we partially adapted Smet and Byrne (2013)'s design for a group of Asian elephants in Thailand. In a two-object-choice task in which only one of two buckets was baited with food, we found that, as a group, the elephants did not follow cues provided by an experimenter when she was positioned either equidistant between the buckets or closer to the incorrect bucket when providing the cues. The elephants did, however, follow cues when the experimenter was closer to the correct bucket. In addition, there was individual variability in the elephants' performance within and across experimental conditions. This indicates that in general, for Asian elephants, the pointing and/or gazing cues alone may not be salient enough; local enhancement in the form of the experimenter's position in relation to the food reward may represent a crucial, complementary cue. These results suggest that the variability within and between the species in their performance on these tasks could be due to a number of factors, including methodology, the elephants' experiences with their handlers, ecological differences in how Asian and African elephants use non-visual sensory information to find food in the wild, or some combination of the three.

Ontogeny vs. phylogeny in primate/canid comparisons: A meta-analysis of the object choice task

The Object Choice Task (OCT) is a widely used paradigm with which researchers measure the ability of a subject to comprehend deictic (directional) cues, such as pointing gestures and eye gaze. There is a widespread belief that nonhuman primates evince only a weak capacity to use deictic cues; in contrast, domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) tend to demonstrate high success rates. This pattern of canid superiority has been taken to support the Domestication Hypothesis, which posits enhancing effects of artificial selection on the sociocognitive abilities of dogs and humans. Here we review nearly two decades of published findings, using variants of the OCT. We find systematic confounds with species classification in task-relevant preparation of the subjects, in the imposition of a barrier between reward and subject, and in the specific deictic cues used to indicate the location of hidden objects. Thus, the widespread belief that dogs outperform primates on OCTs is undermined by the systematic procedural differences in the assessments of these skills, differences that are confounded with taxonomic classification.

Domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris) tend to follow repeated deceptive human cues even when food is visible

There is abundant evidence that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) readily follow pointing and other cues given by humans. But there has been much less research into the question of whether dogs can learn to discriminate between different humans giving repeated honest or dishonest cues as to food location, by ignoring the information imparted by the deceiver. Prior research has demonstrated that even after repeated exposures to deceptive cues with respect to food location, dogs failed to learn to ignore those cues completely. Kundey, De Los Reyes, Arbuthnot, Coshun, Molina, and Royer (2010) found the same outcome in a similar experiment. The purpose of the current experiment was to determine if dogs could learn to discriminate between an honest and a deceptive human by ignoring the deceiver's cues even when it was obvious that the container being pointed at was not baited by using two transparent containers. Eight dogs were tested. On 20 cooperator trials, the experimenter stood behind the baited container and cued the dog, located midway between the containers and 3 m away, to approach it. On 20 deceiver trials, a different experimenter stood behind the empty container and cued the dog to approach that container. Results replicated prior research in that, even though the containers were transparent, the dogs failed to learn to distrust the deceiver completely and went to the empty and indicated container on more than half of the deceiver trials.

Egocentrically-stable discriminative stimulus-based spatial navigation in mice: implementation and comparison with allocentric cues

Animals are capable of using visual cues to find the correct route during navigation. These visual cues, which contain spatial information on the direction towards the goal point, are perceived either allocentrically or egocentrically. In this study, we examined how navigating with these two types of visual cues affects the learning processes of rodents. To present egocentrically-stable spatial cues, we devised a head-mounted device that provided discriminative orientation cues that indicated the correct choice at a fork within a double Y-maze. For allocentrically-stable spatial cues, LEDs serving as external route-mark cues were attached to the walls of the double Y-maze and illuminated to indicate the correct pathway. To rule out the possibility of the mice using extra-maze cues, we rotated the entire maze and used different start and goal sites for every trial. Our results revealed that mice using egocentric cues and external route-mark cues both showed a sigmoidal learning process for spatial navigation and that external route mark-based learning, surprisingly, learned faster than egocentric stimulus-based learning in egocentric space.

Domestic cats (Felis catus) discriminate their names from other words

Two of the most common nonhuman animals that interact with humans are domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and cats (Felis catus). In contrast to dogs, the ability of domestic cats to communicate with humans has not been explored thoroughly. We used a habituation-dishabituation method to investigate whether domestic cats could discriminate human utterances, which consisted of cats' own names, general nouns, and other cohabiting cats' names. Cats from ordinary households and from a 'cat café' participated in the experiments. Among cats from ordinary households, cats habituated to the serial presentation of four different general nouns or four names of cohabiting cats showed a significant rebound in response to the subsequent presentation of their own names; these cats discriminated their own names from general nouns even when unfamiliar persons uttered them. These results indicate that cats are able to discriminate their own names from other words. There was no difference in discrimination of their own names from general nouns between cats from the cat café and household cats, but café cats did not discriminate their own names from other cohabiting cats' names. We conclude that cats can discriminate the content of human utterances based on phonemic differences.

Farm Animal Cognition-Linking Behavior, Welfare and Ethics

Farm animal welfare is a major concern for society and food production. To more accurately evaluate animal farming in general and to avoid exposing farm animals to poor welfare situations, it is necessary to understand not only their behavioral but also their cognitive needs and capacities. Thus, general knowledge of how farm animals perceive and interact with their environment is of major importance for a range of stakeholders, from citizens to politicians to cognitive ethologists to philosophers. This review aims to outline the current state of farm animal cognition research and focuses on ungulate livestock species, such as cattle, horses, pigs and small ruminants, and reflects upon a defined set of cognitive capacities (physical cognition: categorization, numerical ability, object permanence, reasoning, tool use; social cognition: individual discrimination and recognition, communication with humans, social learning, attribution of attention, prosociality, fairness). We identify a lack of information on certain aspects of physico-cognitive capacities in most farm animal species, such as numerosity discrimination and object permanence. This leads to further questions on how livestock comprehend their physical environment and understand causal relationships. Increasing our knowledge in this area will facilitate efforts to adjust husbandry systems and enrichment items to meet the needs and preferences of farm animals. Research in the socio-cognitive domain indicates that ungulate livestock possess sophisticated mental capacities, such as the discrimination between, and recognition of, conspecifics as well as human handlers using multiple modalities. Livestock also react to very subtle behavioral cues of conspecifics and humans. These socio-cognitive capacities can impact human-animal interactions during management practices and introduce ethical considerations on how to treat livestock in general. We emphasize the importance of gaining a better understanding of how livestock species interact with their physical and social environments, as this information can improve housing and management conditions and can be used to evaluate the use and treatment of animals during production.

In what sense are dogs special? Canine cognition in comparative context

The great increase in the study of dog cognition in the current century has yielded insights into canine cognition in a variety of domains. In this review, we seek to place our enhanced understanding of canine cognition into context. We argue that in order to assess dog cognition, we need to regard dogs from three different perspectives: phylogenetically, as carnivoran and specifically a canid; ecologically, as social, cursorial hunters; and anthropogenically, as a domestic animal. A principled understanding of canine cognition should therefore involve comparing dogs' cognition with that of other carnivorans, other social hunters, and other domestic animals. This paper contrasts dog cognition with what is known about cognition in species that fit into these three categories, with a particular emphasis on wolves, cats, spotted hyenas, chimpanzees, dolphins, horses, and pigeons. We cover sensory cognition, physical cognition, spatial cognition, social cognition, and self-awareness. Although the comparisons are incomplete, because of the limited range of studies of some of the other relevant species, we conclude that dog cognition is influenced by the membership of all three of these groups, and taking all three groups into account, dog cognition does not look exceptional.

Goats prefer positive human emotional facial expressions

Domestication has shaped the physiology and the behaviour of animals to better adapt to human environments. Therefore, human facial expressions may be highly informative for animals domesticated for working closely with people, such as dogs and horses. However, it is not known whether other animals, and particularly those domesticated primarily for production, such as goats, are capable of perceiving human emotional cues. In this study, we investigated whether goats can distinguish human facial expressions when simultaneously shown two images of an unfamiliar human with different emotional valences (positive/happy or negative/angry). Both images were vertically attached to a wall on one side of a test arena, 1.3 m apart, and goats were released from the opposite side of the arena (distance of 4.0 m) and were free to explore and interact with the stimuli during the trials. Each of four test trials lasted 30 s. Overall, we found that goats preferred to interact first with happy faces, meaning that they are sensitive to human facial emotional cues. Goats interacted first, more often and for longer duration with positive faces when they were positioned on the right side. However, no preference was found when the positive faces were placed on the left side. We show that animals domesticated for production can discriminate human facial expressions with different emotional valences and prefer to interact with positive ones. Therefore, the impact of domestication on animal cognitive abilities may be more far-reaching than previously assumed.

Communication in Dogs

Simple Summary

Communication takes place between members of the same species, as well as between heterospecific individuals, such as the long co-habitation process and inter-dependent relationship present in domestic dogs and humans. Dogs engage in visual communication by modifying different parts of their body; in tactile communication; and also in auditory and olfactory communication, with vocalizations and body odours, respectively. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the recent literature about dog communication, describing the different nature of the signals used in conspecific and heterospecific interactions and their communicative meaning. Lateralized dog brain patterns underlying basic neural mechanisms are also discussed, for both conspecific and heterospecific social communication.

Abstract

Dogs have a vast and flexible repertoire of visual, acoustic, and olfactory signals that allow an expressive and fine tuned conspecific and dog–human communication. Dogs use this behavioural repertoire when communicating with humans, employing the same signals used during conspecific interactions, some of which can acquire and carry a different meaning when directed toward humans. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the latest progress made in the study of dog communication, describing the different nature of the signals used in conspecific (dog–dog) and heterospecific (dog–human) interactions and their communicative meaning. Finally, behavioural asymmetries that reflect lateralized neural patterns involved in both dog–dog and dog–human social communication are discussed.

Sex, skull length, breed, and age predict how dogs look at faces of humans and conspecifics

The gaze of other dogs and humans is informative for dogs, but it has not been explored which factors predict face-directed attention. We used image presentations of unfamiliar human and dog heads, facing the observer (portrait) or facing away (profile), and measured looking time responses. We expected dog portraits to be aversive, human portraits to attract interest, and tested dogs of different sex, skull length and breed function, which in previous work had predicted human-directed attention. Dog portraits attracted longer looking times than human profiles. Mesocephalic dogs looked at portraits longer than at profiles, independent of the species in the image. Overall, brachycephalic dogs and dogs of unspecified breed function (such as mixed breeds) displayed the longest looking times. Among the latter, females observed the images for longer than males, which is in line with human findings on sex differences in processing faces. In a subsequent experiment, we tested whether dog portraits functioned as threatening stimuli. We hypothesized that dogs will avoid food rewards or approach them more slowly in the presence of a dog portrait, but found no effect of image type. In general, older dogs took longer to approach food placed in front of the images and mesocephalic dogs were faster than dogs of other skull length types. The results suggest that short-headed dogs are more attentive to faces, while sex and breed function predict looking times through complex interactions.

Self domestication and the evolution of language

We set out an account of how self-domestication plays a crucial role in the evolution of language. In doing so, we focus on the growing body of work that treats language structure as emerging from the process of cultural transmission. We argue that a full recognition of the importance of cultural transmission fundamentally changes the kind of questions we should be asking regarding the biological basis of language structure. If we think of language structure as reflecting an accumulated set of changes in our genome, then we might ask something like, "What are the genetic bases of language structure and why were they selected?" However, if cultural evolution can account for language structure, then this question no longer applies. Instead, we face the task of accounting for the origin of the traits that enabled that process of structure-creating cultural evolution to get started in the first place. In light of work on cultural evolution, then, the new question for biological evolution becomes, "How did those precursor traits evolve?" We identify two key precursor traits: (1) the transmission of the communication system through learning; and (2) the ability to infer the communicative intent associated with a signal or action. We then describe two comparative case studies-the Bengalese finch and the domestic dog-in which parallel traits can be seen emerging following domestication. Finally, we turn to the role of domestication in human evolution. We argue that the cultural evolution of language structure has its origin in an earlier process of self-domestication.

Should I fetch one or the other? A study on dogs on the object choice in the bimodal contrasting paradigm

The present study assessed how dogs weigh gestural versus verbal information communicated to them by humans in transitive actions. The dogs were trained by their owners to fetch an object under three conditions: a bimodal congruent condition characterized by using gestures and voices simultaneously; a unimodal gestural condition characterized by using only gestures; and a unimodal verbal condition characterized by using only voices. An additional condition, defined as a bimodal incongruent condition, was later added, in which the gesture contrasted with the verbal command, that is, the owner indicated an object while pronouncing the name of the other object visible to dogs. In the incongruent condition, seven out of nine dogs choose to follow the gestural indication and performed above chance, two were at chance, whereas none of the dogs followed the verbal cues above chance. The dogs, as a group, performed above chance the gestural command in 73.6% of cases. The analysis of latencies in the above-mentioned four conditions exhibited significant differences. The unimodal verbal and the gestural conditions recorded a slower performance than both the bimodal incongruent and congruent conditions. No statistical differences were observed between the unimodal and bimodal conditions. Our results demonstrate that dogs, trained to respond equally well to gestural and verbal commands, choose to follow the indication provided by the gestural command than the verbal one to a significant extent in transitive actions. Furthermore, the responses to bimodal conditions were found to be quicker than the unimodal ones.

Dogs' recognition of human selfish and generous attitudes requires little but critical experience with people

There is some dispute regarding the role of experience in the development of dogs´ socio-cognitive abilities in their interaction with people. We sought to provide new evidence to this debate by comparing dogs with contrasting levels of experience with humans, in a task involving the discrimination of human generous and selfish attitudes. To this end, we compared the performance of adult family dogs against that of adult shelter dogs and puppies living in people´s homes. In training trials, the generous experimenter (G) signaled the bowl with food and allowed the dog to eat, whereas the selfish experimenter (S) also signaled the baited bowl, but she/he ate the food before the dog could have access to it. Then, subjects were allowed to freely choose between G and S in the choice test. The main finding was that adult subjects (both family and shelter dogs) developed a preference for G over S, but puppies did not. We conclude that the quality and/or quantity of everyday-contact with people did not affect the discrimination of human attitudes in the present protocol, but the amount of experience with people (in years) did matter. Finally, we discuss the relative role of domestication and ontogeny in the development of dogs´ socio-cognitive abilities.

Free-ranging dogs show age related plasticity in their ability to follow human pointing

Differences in pet dogs' and captive wolves' ability to follow human communicative intents have led to the proposition of several hypotheses regarding the possession and development of social cognitive skills in dogs. It is possible that the social cognitive abilities of pet dogs are induced by indirect conditioning through living with humans, and studying free-ranging dogs can provide deeper insights into differentiating between innate abilities and conditioning in dogs. Free-ranging dogs are mostly scavengers, indirectly depending on humans for their sustenance. Humans can act both as food providers and as threats to these dogs, and thus understanding human gestures can be a survival need for the free-ranging dogs. We tested the responsiveness of such dogs in urban areas toward simple human pointing cues using dynamic proximal points. Our experiment showed that pups readily follow proximal pointing and exhibit weaker avoidance to humans, but stop doing so at the later stages of development. While juveniles showed frequent and prolonged gaze alternations, only adults adjusted their behaviour based on the reliability of the human experimenter after being rewarded. Thus free-ranging dogs show a tendency to respond to human pointing gestures, with a certain level of behavioural plasticity that allows learning from ontogenic experience.

Do pet dogs (Canis familiaris) follow ostensive and non-ostensive human gaze to distant space and to objects?

Dogs are renowned for being skilful at using human-given communicative cues such as pointing. Results are contradictory, however, when it comes to dogs' following human gaze, probably due to methodological discrepancies. Here we investigated whether dogs follow human gaze to one of two food locations better than into distant space even after comparable pre-training. In Experiments 1 and 2, the gazing direction of dogs was recorded in a gaze-following into distant space and in an object-choice task where no choice was allowed, in order to allow a direct comparison between tasks, varying the ostensive nature of the gazes. We found that dogs only followed repeated ostensive human gaze into distant space, whereas they followed all gaze cues in the object-choice task. Dogs followed human gaze better in the object-choice task than when there was no obvious target to look at. In Experiment 3, dogs were tested in another object-choice task and were allowed to approach a container. Ostensive cues facilitated the dogs' following gaze with gaze as well as their choices: we found that dogs in the ostensive group chose the indicated container at chance level, whereas they avoided this container in the non-ostensive group. We propose that dogs may perceive the object-choice task as a competition over food and may interpret non-ostensive gaze as an intentional cue that indicates the experimenter's interest in the food location she has looked at. Whether ostensive cues simply mitigate the competitive perception of this situation or they alter how dogs interpret communicative gaze needs further investigation. Our findings also show that following gaze with one's gaze and actually choosing one of the two containers in an object-choice task need to be considered as different variables. The present study clarifies a number of questions related to gaze-following in dogs and adds to a growing body of evidence showing that human ostensive cues can strongly modify dog behaviour.

Dog rivalry impacts following behavior in a decision-making task involving food

Dogs learn a great deal from humans and other dogs. Previous studies of socially influenced learning between dogs have typically used a highly trained demonstrator dog who is unfamiliar to the observer. Because of this, it is unknown how dynamics between familiar dogs may influence their likelihood of learning from each other. In this study, we tested dogs living together in two-dog households on whether individual dogs' rivalry scores were associated with performance on a local enhancement task. Specifically, we wanted to know whether dog rivalry impacted whether an observer dog would approach a plate from which a demonstrator dog had eaten all available food, or whether the observer dog would approach the adjacent plate that still contained food. Dog rivalry scores were calculated using the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire and indicated each dog's tendency to engage aggressively with the other household dog. Low-rivalry dogs were more likely to approach the empty plate than high-rivalry dogs when the observer dog was allowed to approach the plates immediately after the demonstrator had moved out of sight. This difference between low- and high-rivalry dogs disappeared, however, when observer dogs had to wait 5 s before approaching the plates. The same pattern was observed during a control condition when a human removed the food from a plate. Compared to low-rivalry dogs, high-rivalry dogs may pay less attention to other dogs due to a low tolerance for having other dogs in close proximity.

Human head orientation and eye visibility as indicators of attention for goats (Capra hircus)

Animals domesticated for working closely with humans (e.g. dogs) have been shown to be remarkable in adjusting their behaviour to human attentional stance. However, there is little evidence for this form of information perception in species domesticated for production rather than companionship. We tested domestic ungulates (goats) for their ability to differentiate attentional states of humans. In the first experiment, we investigated the effect of body and head orientation of one human experimenter on approach behaviour by goats. Test subjects (N = 24) significantly changed their behaviour when the experimenter turned its back to the subjects, but did not take into account head orientation alone. In the second experiment, goats (N = 24) could choose to approach one of two experimenters, while only one was paying attention to them. Goats preferred to approach humans that oriented their body and head towards the subject, whereas head orientation alone had no effect on choice behaviour. In the third experiment, goats (N = 32) were transferred to a separate test arena and were rewarded for approaching two experimenters providing a food reward during training trials. In subsequent probe test trials, goats had to choose between the two experimenters differing in their attentional states. Like in Experiments 1 and 2, goats did not show a preference for the attentive person when the inattentive person turned her head away from the subject. In this last experiment, goats preferred to approach the attentive person compared to a person who closed their eyes or covered the whole face with a blind. However, goats showed no preference when one person covered only the eyes. Our results show that animals bred for production rather than companionship show differences in their approach and choice behaviour depending on human attentive state. However, our results contrast with previous findings regarding the use of the head orientation to attribute attention and show the importance of cross-validating results.

Is your dog empathic? Developing a Dog Emotional Reactivity Survey

Dogs' seemingly empathic behaviour attracts general and scientific attention alike. Behaviour tests are usually not sufficiently realistic to evoke empathic-like behaviour; therefore we decided to ask owners about their experiences with their dogs in emotionally loaded situations. Owners from Hungary (N = 591) and from Germany (N = 2283) were asked to rate their level of agreement on a 1–5 Likert scale with statements about the reactivity of their dogs to their emotions and to other dogs’ behaviour. We created two scales with satisfactory internal reliability: reactivity to the owner’s emotion and reactivity to other dogs’ behaviour. Based on an owner-dog personality matching theory, we hypothesised that the owner’s empathy, as measured by the subscale on the cooperativeness character factor of the human personality, will correlate with their dog’s emotional reactivity in emotionally loaded situations. In addition we also examined how anthropomorphism, contagious yawning, attitude toward the dog are related to emotional reactivity in dogs as perceived by the owner. In addition we examined how owners rate dog pictures. We found that the scale scores were largely independent from demographic and environmental variables like breed, sex, age, age at acquiring, keeping practices, training experiences and owner's age. However, anthropomorphic and emotional attitude of the owners probably biased the responses. In the German sample more empathic owners reported to have more emotionally reactive dog, as expected by the personality matching theory. More empathic owners reported to have fewer problems with their dogs and they rated a puppy picture as more cute in both countries. 62% of owners from Hungary and 36% of owner from Germany agreed with the statement “My dog is more important for me than any human being”. In Germany, more empathic owners agreed less with this statement and indicated that their dogs have a tendency for contagious yawning. Owners whose attitudes toward their dogs were anthropomorphic (agreed more with the statement that “My dog thinks like a child”), perceived their dogs as more reactive to their emotions. This findings highlights the importance of testing the attitudes of the respondents when they assess the personality and the emotions of animals. The criterion validity of the Dog Emotional Reactivity Survey should be confirmed by objective behavioural tests.

Piglets Learn to Use Combined Human-Given Visual and Auditory Signals to Find a Hidden Reward in an Object Choice Task

Although animals rarely use only one sense to communicate, few studies have investigated the use of combinations of different signals between animals and humans. This study assessed for the first time the spontaneous reactions of piglets to human pointing gestures and voice in an object-choice task with a reward. Piglets (Sus scrofa domestica) mainly use auditory signals–individually or in combination with other signals—to communicate with their conspecifics. Their wide hearing range (42 Hz to 40.5 kHz) fits the range of human vocalisations (40 Hz to 1.5 kHz), which may induce sensitivity to the human voice. However, only their ability to use visual signals from humans, especially pointing gestures, has been assessed to date. The current study investigated the effects of signal type (visual, auditory and combined visual and auditory) and piglet experience on the piglets’ ability to locate a hidden food reward over successive tests. Piglets did not find the hidden reward at first presentation, regardless of the signal type given. However, they subsequently learned to use a combination of auditory and visual signals (human voice and static or dynamic pointing gestures) to successfully locate the reward in later tests. This learning process may result either from repeated presentations of the combination of static gestures and auditory signals over successive tests, or from transitioning from static to dynamic pointing gestures, again over successive tests. Furthermore, piglets increased their chance of locating the reward either if they did not go straight to a bowl after entering the test area or if they stared at the experimenter before visiting it. Piglets were not able to use the voice direction alone, indicating that a combination of signals (pointing and voice direction) is necessary. Improving our communication with animals requires adapting to their individual sensitivity to human-given signals.

Dog Breed Differences in Visual Communication with Humans

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) have developed a close relationship with humans through the process of domestication. In human-dog interactions, eye contact is a key element of relationship initiation and maintenance. Previous studies have suggested that canine ability to produce human-directed communicative signals is influenced by domestication history, from wolves to dogs, as well as by recent breed selection for particular working purposes. To test the genetic basis for such abilities in purebred dogs, we examined gazing behavior towards humans using two types of behavioral experiments: the ‘visual contact task’ and the ‘unsolvable task’. A total of 125 dogs participated in the study. Based on the genetic relatedness among breeds subjects were classified into five breed groups: Ancient, Herding, Hunting, Retriever-Mastiff and Working). We found that it took longer time for Ancient breeds to make an eye-contact with humans, and that they gazed at humans for shorter periods of time than any other breed group in the unsolvable situation. Our findings suggest that spontaneous gaze behavior towards humans is associated with genetic similarity to wolves rather than with recent selective pressure to create particular working breeds.

What Is Special About Dog Cognition?

I review three domains in which it has been proposed that dogs possess unique cognitive abilities in understanding people. The ability of dogs to follow human pointing gestures is widely reported, but so too is evidence of this behavior in a range of other species. Several studies have investigated the ability of dogs to discriminate between people who can see them and others whose vision is obscured. Dogs’ successes and failures on this task are best accounted for by considering the conditions under which different populations of dogs live. I conclude by reviewing studies of dogs’ ability to select whether or not to imitate the actions of another dog depending on whether the demonstrator dog appeared to have a motive for behaving in a less-than-optimal fashion. In all three cases, the evidence for unique human-like cognitive skills in dogs is limited, either because of evidence that other species complete these tests successfully or because the evidence for success in dogs is modest. Dogs are better viewed as equipped with the same cognitive skills as many other species, but, by living in proximity to and often being totally dependent on human beings, they acquire exquisite sensitivity to human action.

Do Dogs Provide Information Helpfully?

Dogs are particularly skilful during communicative interactions with humans. Dogs' abilities to use human communicative cues in cooperative contexts outcompete those of other species, and might be the result of selection pressures during domestication. Dogs also produce signals to direct the attention of humans towards outside entities, a behaviour often referred to as showing behaviour. This showing behaviour in dogs is thought to be something dogs use intentionally and referentially. However, there is currently no evidence that dogs communicate helpfully, i.e. to inform an ignorant human about a target that is of interest to the human but not to the dog. Communicating with a helpful motive is particularly interesting because it might suggest that dogs understand the human's goals and need for information. In study 1, we assessed whether dogs would abandon an object that they find interesting in favour of an object useful for their human partner, a random novel distractor, or an empty container. Results showed that it was mainly self-interest that was driving the dogs' behaviour. The dogs mainly directed their behaviour towards the object they had an interest in, but dogs were more persistent when showing the object relevant to the human, suggesting that to some extent they took the humans interest into account. Another possibility is that dogs' behaviour was driven by an egocentric motivation to interact with novel targets and that the dogs' neophila might have masked their helpful tendencies. Therefore, in study 2 the dogs had initial access to both objects, and were expected to indicate only one (relevant or distractor). The human partner interacted with the dog using vocal communication in half of the trials, and remaining silent in the other half. Dogs from both experimental groups, i.e. indicating the relevant object or indicating the distractor, established joint attention with the human. However, the human's vocal communication and the presence of the object relevant to the human increased the persistency of showing, supporting the hypothesis that the dogs understood the objects' relevance to the human. We propose two non-exclusive explanations. These results might suggest that informative motives could possibly underlie dogs' showing. It is also possible that dogs might have indicated the location of the hidden object because they recognised it as the target of the human's search. This would be consistent with taking into account the objects' relevance, without necessarily implying that the dogs understood the human's state of knowledge.

Tolerance to delayed reward tasks in social and non-social contexts

Domestic dogs have demonstrated striking social skills towards humans, however, there are few studies investigating impulsivity with delay-choice tasks in communicative contexts. In Study 1 we introduced a novel social delay-choice task in which subjects had to choose between one human cueing an immediate, low quality reward and another human signaling a delayed, high quality reward. In Study 2 we evaluated the tolerance to increasing delays using social and non-social cues. We also explored if more self-controlled dogs show any distinct behaviours during delays. Finally, we correlated all results with the Dog Impulsivity Assessment Scale (Wright et al., 2011). In Study 1 dogs reached an average maximum delay of 11.55s. In Study 2 that average was 52.14s with social cues and 40.2s with non-social, but differences were not significant. Tolerance to delays showed high interindividual variation. Dogs remained mostly standing and near the delayed experimenter in the social tasks although we could not to find any distinct coping strategies. No significant correlations were found between the delay reached and behaviours, neither with the scale. These results show the relevance of the parameters and methods used to investigate tolerance to delay of reinforcements. More investigations are required, especially an assessment of the same subjects performing the same tasks using different contexts.

Dogs Identify Agents in Third-Party Interactions on the Basis of the Observed Degree of Contingency

To investigate whether dogs could recognize contingent reactivity as a marker of agents' interaction, we performed an experiment in which dogs were presented with third-party contingent events. In the perfect-contingency condition, dogs were shown an unfamiliar self-propelled agent (SPA) that performed actions corresponding to audio clips of verbal commands played by a computer. In the high-but-imperfect-contingency condition, the SPA responded to the verbal commands on only two thirds of the trials; in the low-contingency condition, the SPA responded to the commands on only one third of the trials. In the test phase, the SPA approached one of two tennis balls, and then the dog was allowed to choose one of the balls. The proportion of trials on which a dog chose the object indicated by the SPA increased with the degree of contingency: Dogs chose the target object significantly above chance level only in the perfect-contingency condition. This finding suggests that dogs may use the degree of temporal contingency observed in third-party interactions as a cue to identify agents.

Behavioral and Self-report Measures Influencing Children's Reported Attachment to Their Dog

Despite the prevalence of dogs as family pets and increased scientific interest in canine behavior, few studies have investigated characteristics of the child or dog that influence the child-dog relationship. In the present study, we explored how behavioral and self-report measures influence a child's reported feelings of attachment to their dog, as assessed by the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS). We tested specifically whether children (N= 99; Age: M= 10.25 years, SD= 1.31 years) reported stronger attachment to dogs that were perceived as being more supportive (measured by a modified version of the Network of Relationships Inventory), to dogs that are more successful in following the child's pointing gesture in a standard two-object choice test, or to dogs that solicited more petting in a sociability assessment. In addition, we assessed whether children's attachment security to their parent, and whether being responsible for the care of their dog, influenced reported feelings of attachment to the dog. Overall, perceived support provided by the dog was highly predictive of all subscales of the LAPS. The dog's success in following the child's pointing gesture and lower rates of petting during the sociability assessment were associated with higher ratings on the general attachment subscale of the LAPS, but not of other subscales of the LAPS. Caring for the dog did not predict the child's reported attachment to dog, but did predict the dog's behavior on the point following task and petting during the sociability task. If the child cared for the dog, the dog was more likely to be successful on the pointing task and more likely to be petted. These results indicate a dyadic relationship in which the child's care for the dog is associated with the dog's behavior on the behavioral tasks, which in turn is related to the child's reported feelings of attachment. The direction of influence and nature of this dyad will be a fruitful area for future research.

The Companion Dog as a Model for the Longevity Dividend

The companion dog is the most phenotypically diverse species on the planet. This enormous variability between breeds extends not only to morphology and behavior but also to longevity and the disorders that affect dogs. There are remarkable overlaps and similarities between the human and canine species. Dogs closely share our human environment, including its many risk factors, and the veterinary infrastructure to manage health in dogs is second only to the medical infrastructure for humans. Distinct breed-based health profiles, along with their well-developed health record system and high overlap with the human environment, make the companion dog an exceptional model to improve understanding of the physiological, social, and economic impacts of the longevity dividend (LD). In this review, we describe what is already known about age-specific patterns of morbidity and mortality in companion dogs, and then explore whether this existing evidence supports the LD. We also discuss some potential limitations to using dogs as models of aging, including the fact that many dogs are euthanized before they have lived out their natural life span. Overall, we conclude that the companion dog offers high potential as a model system that will enable deeper research into the LD than is otherwise possible.

Does affective information influence domestic dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) point-following behavior?

Several studies have examined dogs' (Canis lupus familiaris) comprehension and use of human communicative cues. Relatively few studies have, however, examined the effects of human affective behavior (i.e., facial and vocal expressions) on dogs' exploratory and point-following behavior. In two experiments, we examined dogs' frequency of following an adult's pointing gesture in locating a hidden reward or treat when it occurred silently, or when it was paired with a positive or negative facial and vocal affective expression. Like prior studies, the current results demonstrate that dogs reliably follow human pointing cues. Unlike prior studies, the current results also demonstrate that the addition of a positive affective facial and vocal expression, when paired with a pointing gesture, did not reliably increase dogs' frequency of locating a hidden piece of food compared to pointing alone. In addition, and within the negative facial and vocal affect conditions of Experiment 1 and 2, dogs were delayed in their exploration, or approach, toward a baited or sham-baited bowl. However, in Experiment 2, dogs continued to follow an adult's pointing gesture, even when paired with a negative expression, as long as the attention-directing gesture referenced a baited bowl. Together these results suggest that the addition of affective information does not significantly increase or decrease dogs' point-following behavior. Rather these results demonstrate that the presence or absence of affective expressions influences a dogs' exploratory behavior and the presence or absence of reward affects whether they will follow an unfamiliar adult's attention-directing gesture.

The linguistic roots of natural pedagogy

Natural pedagogy is a human-specific capacity that allows us to acquire cultural information from communication even before the emergence of the first words, encompassing three core elements: (i) a sensitivity to ostensive signals like eye contact that indicate to infants that they are being addressed through communication, (ii) a subsequent referential expectation (satisfied by the use of declarative gestures) and (iii) a biased interpretation of ostensive-referential communication as conveying relevant information about the referent's kind (Csibra and Gergely, 2006, 2009, 2011). Remarkably, the link between natural pedagogy and another human-specific capacity, namely language, has rarely been investigated in detail. We here argue that children's production and comprehension of declarative gestures around 10 months of age are in fact expressions of an evolving faculty of language. Through both declarative gestures and ostensive signals, infants can assign the roles of third, second, and first person, building the 'deictic space' that grounds both natural pedagogy and language use. Secondly, we argue that the emergence of two kinds of linguistic structures (i.e., proto-determiner phrases and proto-sentences) in the one-word period sheds light on the different kinds of information that children can acquire or convey at different stages of development (namely, generic knowledge about kinds and knowledge about particular events/actions/state of affairs, respectively). Furthermore, the development of nominal and temporal reference in speech allows children to cognize information in terms of spatial and temporal relations. In this way, natural pedagogy transpires as an inherent aspect of our faculty of language, rather than as an independent adaptation that pre-dates language in evolution or development (Csibra and Gergely, 2006). This hypothesis is further testable through predictions it makes on the different linguistic profiles of toddlers with developmental disorders.

Strategies Used by Pet Dogs for Solving Olfaction-Based Problems at Various Distances

The olfactory acuity of domestic dogs has been well established through numerous studies on trained canines, however whether untrained dogs spontaneously utilize this ability for problem solving is less clear. In the present paper we report two studies that examine what strategies family dogs use in two types of olfaction-based problems as well as their success at various distances. In Study 1, thirty dogs were tasked with distinguishing a target, either their covered owner (Exp 1) or baited food (Exp 2), from three visually identical choices at distances of 0m (touching distance), 1m, and 3m. There were nine consecutive trials for each target. We found that in Exp 1 the dogs successfully chose their owners over strangers at 0m and 1m, but not at 3m, where they used a win-stay strategy instead. In Exp 2 the dogs were only successful in choosing the baited pot at 0m. They used the win-stay strategy at 1m, but chose randomly at 3m. In Study 2, a different group of dogs was tested with their owners (Exp 1) and baited food (Exp 2) at just the 3m distance with two possible targets in 10-10 trials. In Exp 1 the dogs’ overall performance was at chance level; however, when analyzed by trial, we noticed that despite tending to find their owners on the first trial, they generally switched to a win-stay strategy in subsequent trials, only to return to correctly choosing their owners based on olfaction in the later trials. In Exp 2, the dogs chose randomly throughout. We also found that dogs who relied on visual information in the warm-up trials were less successful in the olfaction-based test. Our results suggest that despite their ability to successfully collect information through olfaction, family dogs often prioritize other strategies to solve basic choice tasks.