|
|
Schwab, C., & Huber, L. (2006). Obey or not obey? Dogs (Canis familiaris) behave differently in response to attentional states of their owners. J Comp Psychol, 120(3), 169–175.
Abstract: Sixteen domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were tested in a familiar context in a series of 1-min trials on how well they obeyed after being told by their owner to lie down. Food was used in 1/3 of all trials, and during the trial the owner engaged in 1 of 5 activities. The dogs behaved differently depending on the owner's attention to them. When being watched by the owner, the dogs stayed lying down most often and/or for the longest time compared with when the owner read a book, watched TV, turned his or her back on them, or left the room. These results indicate that the dogs sensed the attentional state of their owners by judging observable behavioral cues such as eye contact and eye, head, and body orientation.
|
|
|
|
Virányi, Z., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (2004). Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans' attentional focus. Behav. Process., 66(2), 161–172.
Abstract: Dogs' ability to recognise cues of human visual attention was studied in different experiments. Study 1 was designed to test the dogs' responsiveness to their owner's tape-recorded verbal commands (Down!) while the Instructor (who was the owner of the dog) was facing either the dog or a human partner or none of them, or was visually separated from the dog. Results show that dogs were more ready to follow the command if the Instructor attended them during instruction compared to situations when the Instructor faced the human partner or was out of sight of the dog. Importantly, however, dogs showed intermediate performance when the Instructor was orienting into 'empty space' during the re-played verbal commands. This suggests that dogs are able to differentiate the focus of human attention. In Study 2 the same dogs were offered the possibility to beg for food from two unfamiliar humans whose visual attention (i.e. facing the dog or turning away) was systematically varied. The dogs' preference for choosing the attentive person shows that dogs are capable of using visual cues of attention to evaluate the human actors' responsiveness to solicit food-sharing. The dogs' ability to understand the communicatory nature of the situations is discussed in terms of their social cognitive skills and unique evolutionary history.
|
|
|
|
Williams, J. L., Friend, T. H., Collins, M. N., Toscano, M. J., Sisto-Burt, A., & Nevill, C. H. (2003). Effects of imprint training procedure at birth on the reactions of foals at age six months. Equine Vet J, 35(2), 127–132.
Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: While imprint training procedures have been promoted in popular magazines, they have received limited scientific investigation. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of a neonatal imprint training procedure on 6-month-old foals and to determine if any one session had a greater effect than others. METHODS: Foals (n = 131) were divided into the following treatments: no imprint training, imprint training at birth, 12, 24 and 48 h after birth or imprint training only at birth, 12, 24, 48, or 72 h after birth. Foals then received minimal human handling until they were tested at 6 months. RESULTS: During training, time to complete exposure to the stimulus was significant for only 2 of 6 stimuli. Percentage change in baseline heart rate was significant for only 2 of 10 stimuli. These 4 effects were randomly spread across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the number of imprint training sessions (0, 1, or 4) nor the timing of imprint training sessions (none, birth, 12, 24, 48, or 72 h after birth) influenced the foal's behaviour at 6 months of age. POTENTIAL CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this study, imprint training did not result in better behaved, less reactive foals.
|
|
