|
Rumiantsev, S. N. (1973). [Biological function of Clostridium tetani toxin (ecological and evolutionary aspects)]. Zh Evol Biokhim Fiziol, 9(5), 474–480.
|
Riedel, J., Buttelmann, D., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use a physical marker to locate hidden food. Anim. Cogn., 9(1), 27–35.
Abstract: Dogs can use the placement of an arbitrary marker to locate hidden food in an object-choice situation. We tested domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) in three studies aimed at pinning down the relative contributions of the human's hand and the marker itself. We baited one of two cups (outside of the dogs' view) and gave the dog a communicative cue to find the food. Study 1 systematically varied dogs' perceptual access to the marker placing event, so that dogs saw either the whole human, the hand only, the marker only, or nothing. Follow-up trials investigated the effect of removing the marker before the dog's choice. Dogs used the marker as a communicative cue even when it had been removed prior to the dog's choice and attached more importance to this cue than to the hand that placed it although the presence of the hand boosted performance when it appeared together with the marker. Study 2 directly contrasted the importance of the hand and the marker and revealed that the effect of the marker diminished if it had been associated with both cups. In contrast touching both cups with the hand had no effect on performance. Study 3 investigated whether the means of marker placement (intentional or accidental) had an effect on dogs' choices. Results showed that dogs did not differentiate intentional and accidental placing of the marker. These results suggest that dogs use the marker as a genuine communicative cue quite independently from the experimenter's actions.
|
Reid, P. J. (2009). Adapting to the human world: Dogs' responsiveness to our social cues. Behav. Process., 80(3), 325–333.
Abstract: Dogs are more skilful than a host of other species at tasks which require they respond to human communicative gestures in order to locate hidden food. Four basic interpretations for this proficiency surface from distilling the research findings. One possibility is that dogs simply have more opportunity than other species to learn to be responsive to human social cues. A different analysis suggests that the domestication process provided an opening for dogs to apply general cognitive problem-solving skills to a novel social niche. Some researchers go beyond this account and propose that dogs' co-evolution with humans equipped them with a theory of mind for social exchanges. Finally, a more prudent approach suggests that sensitivity to the behaviours of both humans and conspecifics would be particularly advantageous for a social scavenger like the dog. A predisposition to attend to human actions allows for rapid early learning of the association between gestures and the availability of food.
|
Quaranta, A., Siniscalchi, M., Frate, A., & Vallortigara, G. (2004). Paw preference in dogs: relations between lateralised behaviour and immunity. Behavioural Brain Research, 153(2), 521–525.
Abstract: Paw use in a task consisting of the removal of a piece of adhesive paper from the snout was investigated in 80 mongrel and pure-bred domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Population lateralisation was observed, but in opposite directions in the two sexes (animals were not desexed): males preferentially used their left paw, females their right paw. The relationship between immune function and paw preference was then investigated. Some immune parameters (total number of white blood cells including lymphocytes, granulocytes and monocytes; leukocyte formula; total proteins; γ-globulins) were investigated in a sample of left-pawed (n=6), right-pawed (n=6) and ambidextrous (n=6) dogs. The results showed that the percentage of lymphocytes was higher in left-pawed than in right-pawed and ambidextrous dogs, whereas granulocytes percentage was lower in left-pawed than in right-pawed and ambidextrous dogs. Moreover, total number of lymphocytes cells was higher in left-pawed than in right-pawed and ambidextrous dogs, whereas the number of γ-globulins was lower in left-pawed than in right-pawed and ambidextrous dogs. These findings represent the first evidence that brain asymmetry modulates immune responses in dogs.
|
Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice` The owners effect on pet dogs? ( Canis lupus familiaris ) performance in a food choice task. Anim. Cogn., 11(1), 167–174.
Abstract: Abstract This study investigates the influence of owners on their dogs performance in a food choice task using either different or equal quantities of food. Fifty-four pet dogs were tested in three different conditions. In Condition 1 we evaluated their ability to choose between a large and small amount of food (quantity discrimination task). In Condition 2 dogs were again presented with a choice between the large and small food quantity, but only after having witnessed their owner favouring the small quantity. In Condition 3 dogs were given a choice between two equally small quantities of food having witnessed their owner favouring either one or the other. A strong effect of the owner on the dogs`` performance was observed. In Condition 1 dogs as a group chose significantly more often the large food quantity, thus showing their ability to solve the quantity discrimination task. After observing their owner expressing a preference for the small food quantity they chose the large quantity of food significantly less than in the independent choice situation. The tendency to conform to the owner`s choice was higher when the dogs had to choose between equally small quantities of food (Condition 3) rather than between a large and a small one (Condition 2). These results provide evidence that dogs can be influenced by their owners even when their indications are clearly in contrast with direct perceptual information, thus leading dogs to ultimately make counterproductive choices.
|
Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, Á., Vida, V., & Csányi, V. (2005). The pet dogs ability for learning from a human demonstrator in a detour task is independent from the breed and age. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 90(3), 309–323.
Abstract: There are many indications and much practical knowledge about the different tasks which various breeds of dogs are selected for. Correspondingly these different breeds are known to possess different physical and mental abilities. We hypothesized that commonly kept breeds will show differences in their problem solving ability in a detour task around a V-shaped fence, and also, that breed differences will affect their learning ability from a human demonstrator, who demonstrates a detour around the fence. Subjects were recruited in Hungarian pet dog schools. We compared the results of the 10 most common breeds in our sample when they were tested in the detour task without human demonstration. There was no significant difference between the latencies of detour, however, there was a trend that German Shepherd dogs were the quickest and Giant Schnauzers were the slowest in this test. For testing the social learning ability of dogs we formed three breed groups (“utility”, “shepherd” and “hunting”). There were no significant differences between these, all the breed groups learned equally well from the human demonstrator. However, we found that dogs belonging to the “shepherd” group looked back more frequently to their owner than the dogs in the “hunting” group. Further, we have found that the age of pet dogs did not affect their social learning ability in the detour task. Our results showed that the pet status of a dog has probably a stronger effect on its cognitive performance and human related behaviour than its age or breed. These results emphasize that socialization and common activities with the dog might overcome the possible breed differences, if we give the dogs common problem solving, or social learning tasks.
|
|
Pitchford, R. J., Visser, P. S., du Toit, J. F., de Pienaar, U. V., & Young, E. (1973). Observations on the ecology of Schistosoma mattheei Veglia & Le Roux, 1929, in portion of the Kruger National Park and surrounding area using a new quantitative technique for egg output. J S Afr Vet Assoc, 44(4), 405–420.
|
|
Pennisi, E. (2006). Animal cognition. Man's best friend(s) reveal the possible roots of social intelligence (Vol. 312).
|
Osthaus, B., Proops, L., Hocking, I., & Burden, F. (2013). Spatial cognition and perseveration by horses, donkeys and mules in a simple A-not-B detour task. Animal Cognition, 16(2), 301–305.
Abstract: We investigated perseveration and detour behaviour in 36 equids (Equus caballus, E. asinus, E. caballus × E. asinus) and compared these data to those of a previous study on domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). The animals were required to make a detour through a gap at one end of a straight barrier in order to reach a visible target. After one, two, three or four repeats (A trials), the gap was moved to the opposite end of the barrier (B trials). We recorded initial deviations from the correct solution path and the latency to crossing the barrier. In the A trials, mules crossed the barrier significantly faster than their parental species, the horses and donkeys. In the B trials, following the change of gap location, all species showed a reduction in performance. Both dogs and horses exhibited significant spatial perseveration, going initially to the previous gap location. Donkeys and mules, however, performed at chance level. Our results suggest that hybrid vigour in mules extends to spatial abilities.
|
Osthaus, B., Lea, S. E. G., & Slater, A. M. (2005). Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim. Cogn., 8(1), 37–47.
Abstract: Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) were tested in four experiments for their understanding of means-end connections. In each of the experiments, the dogs attempted to retrieve a food treat that could be seen behind a barrier and which was connected, via string, to a within-reach wooden block. In the experiments, either one or two strings were present, but the treat was attached only to one string. Successful retrieval of the treat required the animals to pull the appropriate string (either by pawing or by grasping the wooden block in their jaws) until the treat emerged from under the barrier. The results showed that the dogs were successful if the treat was in a perpendicular line to the barrier, i.e. straight ahead, but not when the string was at an angle: in the latter condition, the typical response was a proximity error in that the dogs pawed or mouthed at a location closest in line to the treat. When two strings that crossed were present, the dogs tended to pull on the wrong string. The combined results from the experiments show that, although dogs can learn to pull on a string to obtain food, they do not spontaneously understand means-end connections involving strings.
|
