|
|
Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Virányi, Z., & Csányi, V. (2003). A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do. Current Biology, 13(9), 763–766.
Abstract: The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.
|
|
|
|
Miklósi, Á. (2002). Cecilia Heyes and Ludwig Huber (eds): The Evolution of Cognition. Anim. Cogn., 5(3), 187–189.
|
|
|
|
Miklósi, Á. (2002). On the usefulness and limits of functional analogies. Anim. Cogn., 5(1), 17–18.
|
|
|
|
Maros, K., Dóka, A., & Miklósi, Á. (2008). Behavioural correlation of heart rate changes in family dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 109(2), 329–341.
Abstract: Fourteen dogs (7 males and 7 females) were tested for their heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) responses in different activities and environmental challenges while their movement was controlled. First, we wanted to compare the dogs? cardiac responses in different body positions (lying, sitting and standing) and during slow walking to reveal their possible influence on HR and HRV. Second, we tested the HR response during an attentive state when the dog was gazing at its favourite toy while remaining in a steady body position. Finally we investigated the heart activity during separation from the owner. We also analysed the individual differences and the influence of gender on the heart responses. We found that the HR increased during periods of increased activity (walking) and was lowest during lying, while it did not differ between sitting and standing. At the same time no changes in HRV were found in the case of different body positions and walking. In contrast, HRV significantly increased when dogs oriented towards their favourite toy, and we found a distinct individual characteristic HR change in this situation compared to the similar body position without the toy being shown. Interestingly during separation from the owner the HR did not increase, but when a strange person was petting the dog, a significant increasing effect was seen in the HR. However the HRV increased only when the petting was discontinued. In general, large individual variation was found with regard to the HR and HRV, while gender did not influence the cardiac activity of the dogs.These results show that body position affected HR significantly in dogs. Further it seems that HRV could be a good indicator of the dog's attentive state. Thus in future studies both the physical and cognitive factors should be given more attention when HR or HRV is investigated as a dependent variable.
|
|
|
|
Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (2003). Dogs (Canis familiaris) learn their owners via observation in a manipulation task. J. Comp. Psychol., 117(2), 156–165.
Abstract: Eighty-seven pet dogs (Canis familiaris) were involved in an experiment in which they had to solve a task to obtain a ball. After witnessing a full demonstration by their owner (10 times pushing the handle of the box, which released a ball), most dogs preferred to touch the handle sooner and more frequently in comparison with other parts of the box, and they used the handle to get the ball. In contrast dogs in 3 control groups developed their own respective methods. The lack of emergence of the ball and playing after the demonstration did not affect the learning performance strongly. This suggests that in dogs the outcome of a demonstration plays only a restricted role in the manifestation of social learning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
|
|
Kubinyi, E., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2003). Social mimetic behaviour and social anticipation in dogs: preliminary results. Anim. Cogn., 6(1), 57–63.
Abstract: Learning contributes to the development of mutual mimicry in group mates. The aim of our study was to investigate whether dogs would initiate walking a detour if they were repeatedly exposed to the detouring behaviour of their owner. Eight dog owners were asked to modify their usual way of approaching their home at the end of their daily walks, namely, to make a short detour before the entrance. Owners performed the detour at least 180 times, over a period of 3-6 months. During the first 30 detours (trials 1-30) all dogs followed the owner on the new route. Between trials 151 and 180, four dogs started to walk the detour before the owner displayed any intention to walk in that direction in 50-93% of the cases. Further observations that were carried out on one dog showed that the initialisation of the detours manifested sooner if a second familiar person started to walk the detours. Interestingly, the dog persisted in initialising detours long after the owners stopped detouring. We describe the observed phenomenon in the framework of social anticipation that manifests when an animal learns the proper sequence of an act performed by another animal, so that it can (1) predict the action in this sequence, and (2) as a result start either a similar or a complementary action as a response. These observations suggest that the dogs' social anticipation ability contributes to behavioural synchronisation and cooperative processes between dog and owner.
|
|
|
|
Giret, N., Miklósi, Á., Kreutzer, M., & Bovet, D. (2009). Use of experimenter-given cues by African gray parrots ( Psittacus erithacus ). Anim. Cogn., 12(1), 1–10.
Abstract: Abstract: One advantage of living in a social group is the opportunity to use information provided by other individuals. Social information can be based on cues provided by a conspecific or even by a heterospecific individual (e.g., gaze direction, vocalizations, pointing gestures). Although the use of human gaze and gestures has been extensively studied in primates, and is increasingly studied in other mammals, there is no documentation of birds using these cues in a cooperative context. In this study, we tested the ability of three African gray parrots to use different human cues (pointing and/or gazing) in an object-choice task. We found that one subject spontaneously used the most salient pointing gesture (looking and steady pointing with hand at about 20 cm from the baited box). The two others were also able to use this cue after 15 trials. None of the parrots spontaneously used the steady gaze cues (combined head and eye orientation), but one learned to do so effectively after only 15 trials when the distance between the head and the baited box was about 1 m. However, none of the parrots were able to use the momentary pointing nor the distal pointing and gazing cues. These results are discussed in terms of sensitivity to joint attention as a prerequisite to understand pointing gestures as it is to the referential use of labels.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Gácsi, M., McGreevy, P., Kara, E., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behav Brain Funct, 5, 31.
Abstract: ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the functional similarities in the socio-cognitive behaviour of dogs and humans emerged as a consequence of comparable environmental selection pressures. Here we use a novel approach to account for the facilitating effect of domestication in dogs and reveal that selection for two factors under genetic influence (visual cooperation and focused attention) may have led independently to increased comprehension of human communicational cues. METHOD: In Study 1, we observed the performance of three groups of dogs in utilizing the human pointing gesture in a two-way object choice test. We compared breeds selected to work while visually separated from human partners (N = 30, 21 breeds, clustered as independent worker group), with those selected to work in close cooperation and continuous visual contact with human partners (N = 30, 22 breeds, clustered as cooperative worker group), and with a group of mongrels (N = 30).Secondly, it has been reported that, in dogs, selective breeding to produce an abnormal shortening of the skull is associated with a more pronounced area centralis (location of greatest visual acuity). In Study 2, breeds with high cephalic index and more frontally placed eyes (brachycephalic breeds, N = 25, 14 breeds) were compared with breeds with low cephalic index and laterally placed eyes (dolichocephalic breeds, N = 25, 14 breeds). RESULTS: In Study 1, cooperative workers were significantly more successful in utilizing the human pointing gesture than both the independent workers and the mongrels.In study 2, we found that brachycephalic dogs performed significantly better than dolichocephalic breeds. DISCUSSION: After controlling for environmental factors, we have provided evidence that at least two independent phenotypic traits with certain genetic variability affect the ability of dogs to rely on human visual cues. This finding should caution researchers against making simple generalizations about the effects of domestication and on dog-wolf differences in the utilization of human visual signals.
|
|
|
|
Gácsi, M., Kara, E., Belényi, B., Topál, J., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Anim. Cogn., 12(3), 471–479.
Abstract: In spite of the rather different procedures actually used in comparative studies to test the ability of different species to rely on the human pointing gesture, there is no debate on the high performance of dogs in such tasks. Very little is known, however, on the course through which they acquire this ability or the probable factors influencing the process. Important developmental questions have remained unsolved and also some methodological concerns should be addressed before we can convincingly argue for one interpretation or another. In this study we tested 180 dogs of different age (from 2 months to adults) to investigate their performance in the human distal momentary pointing gesture. The results, analyzed at both the group and the individual levels, showed no difference in the performance according to age, indicating that in dogs the comprehension of the human pointing may require only very limited and rapid early learning to fully develop. Interestingly, neither the keeping conditions nor the time spent in active interaction with the owner, and not even some special (agility) training for using human visual cues, had significant effect on the success and explained individual differences. The performance of the dogs was rather stable over time: during the 20 trials within a session and even when subsamples of different age were repeatedly tested. Considering that in spite of the general success at the group level, more than half of the dogs were not successful at the individual level, we revealed alternative “decision-making rules” other than following the pointing gesture of the experimenter.
|
|
