| Records |
Author  |
Gácsi, M.; Miklósi, Á.; Varga, O.; Topál, J.; Csányi, V. |
| Title |
Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human's attention |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2004 |
Publication |
Animal Cognition |
Abbreviated Journal |
Anim. Cogn. |
| Volume |
7 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
144-153 |
| Keywords |
Animals; Association Learning; *Attention; Bonding, Human-Pet; Cognition; *Concept Formation; Cues; Dogs/*psychology; *Facial Expression; Female; Humans; Male; *Nonverbal Communication; *Recognition (Psychology); Social Behavior |
| Abstract |
The ability of animals to use behavioral/facial cues in detection of human attention has been widely investigated. In this test series we studied the ability of dogs to recognize human attention in different experimental situations (ball-fetching game, fetching objects on command, begging from humans). The attentional state of the humans was varied along two variables: (1) facing versus not facing the dog; (2) visible versus non-visible eyes. In the first set of experiments (fetching) the owners were told to take up different body positions (facing or not facing the dog) and to either cover or not cover their eyes with a blindfold. In the second set of experiments (begging) dogs had to choose between two eating humans based on either the visibility of the eyes or direction of the face. Our results show that the efficiency of dogs to discriminate between “attentive” and “inattentive” humans depended on the context of the test, but they could rely on the orientation of the body, the orientation of the head and the visibility of the eyes. With the exception of the fetching-game situation, they brought the object to the front of the human (even if he/she turned his/her back towards the dog), and preferentially begged from the facing (or seeing) human. There were also indications that dogs were sensitive to the visibility of the eyes because they showed increased hesitative behavior when approaching a blindfolded owner, and they also preferred to beg from the person with visible eyes. We conclude that dogs are able to rely on the same set of human facial cues for detection of attention, which form the behavioral basis of understanding attention in humans. Showing the ability of recognizing human attention across different situations dogs proved to be more flexible than chimpanzees investigated in similar circumstances. |
| Address |
Comparative Ethology Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Pazmany P. 1/c., 1117, Budapest, Hungary. gm.art@axelero.hu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1435-9448 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:14669075 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
Equine Behaviour @ team @ |
Serial |
2547 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
de Waal, F.B.M. |
| Title |
Darwin's legacy and the study of primate visual communication |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2003 |
Publication |
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Ann N Y Acad Sci |
| Volume |
1000 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
7-31 |
| Keywords |
Affect; Aggression/psychology; Animals; Culture; *Evolution; *Facial Expression; Gestures; Grooming; Humans; Laughter; *Nonverbal Communication; Primates/*physiology; Smiling; *Visual Perception |
| Abstract |
After Charles Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, published in 1872, we had to wait 60 years before the theme of animal expressions was picked up by another astute observer. In 1935, Nadezhda Ladygina-Kohts published a detailed comparison of the expressive behavior of a juvenile chimpanzee and of her own child. After Kohts, we had to wait until the 1960s for modern ethological analyses of primate facial and gestural communication. Again, the focus was on the chimpanzee, but ethograms on other primates appeared as well. Our understanding of the range of expressions in other primates is at present far more advanced than that in Darwin's time. A strong social component has been added: instead of focusing on the expressions per se, they are now often classified according to the social situations in which they typically occur. Initially, quantitative analyses were sequential (i.e., concerned with temporal associations between behavior patterns), and they avoided the language of emotions. I will discuss some of this early work, including my own on the communicative repertoire of the bonobo, a close relative of the chimpanzee (and ourselves). I will provide concrete examples to make the point that there is a much richer matrix of contexts possible than the common behavioral categories of aggression, sex, fear, play, and so on. Primate signaling is a form of negotiation, and previous classifications have ignored the specifics of what animals try to achieve with their exchanges. There is also increasing evidence for signal conventionalization in primates, especially the apes, in both captivity and the field. This process results in group-specific or “cultural” communication patterns. |
| Address |
Yerkes Primate Center, and Psychology Department, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. dewaal@emory.edu |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0077-8923 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
PMID:14766618 |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
refbase @ user @ |
Serial |
177 |
| Permanent link to this record |
