| Home | << 1 2 >> |
|
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.
Keywords: Animals; *Association Learning; *Cognition; Dogs/*psychology; *Problem Solving
|
|
Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., Varga, O., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2004). Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human's attention. Anim. Cogn., 7(3), 144–153.
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.
|
|
Fiset, S., Beaulieu, C., & Landry, F. (2003). Duration of dogs' (Canis familiaris) working memory in search for disappearing objects. Anim. Cogn., 6(1), 1–10.
Abstract: Two experiments explored the duration of dogs' working memory in an object permanence task: a delay was introduced between the disappearance of a moving object behind a box and the beginning of the search by the animal. In experiment 1, the dogs were tested with retention intervals of 0, 10, 30, and 60 s. Results revealed that the dogs' accuracy declined as a function of the length of the retention interval but remained above chance for each retention interval. In experiment 2, with new subjects, longer retention intervals (0, 30, 60, 120, and 240 s) were presented to the dogs. Results replicated findings from experiment 1 and revealed that the dogs' accuracy remained higher than chance level with delays up to 240 s. In both experiments, the analysis of errors also showed that the dogs searched as a function of the proximity of the target box and were not subject to intertrial proactive interference. In the discussion, we explore different alternatives to explain why dogs' search behaviour for hidden objects decreased as a function of the retention intervals.
Keywords: Animals; Dogs/*psychology; *Exploratory Behavior; Female; Male; *Memory; Visual Perception
|