|
|
Gaunet, F. (2010). How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing? Anim. Cogn., 13(2), 311–323.
Abstract: Abstract When apes are not fully understood by humans, they persist with attempts to communicate, elaborating their behaviours to better convey their meaning. Such abilities have never been investigated in dogs. The present study aimed to clarify any effect of the visual attentional state of the owner on dogs’ (Canis familiaris) social-communicative signals for interacting with humans, and to determine whether dogs persist and elaborate their behaviour in the face of failure to communicate a request. Gaze at a hidden target or at the owner, gaze alternation between a hidden target and the owner, vocalisations and contacts in 12 guide and 12 pet dogs were analysed (i) when the dogs were asked by their owners (blind or sighted) to fetch their inaccessible toy and (ii) when the dogs were subsequently given an unfamiliar object (apparent unsuccessful communication) or their toy (apparent successful communication). No group differences were found, indicating no effect of the visual status of the owner on the dogs’ socio-communicative modes (i.e. no sensitivity to human visual attention). Results, however, suggest that the dogs exhibited persistence (but not elaboration) in their “showing” behaviours in each condition, except that in which the toy was returned. Thus, their communication was about a specific item in space (the toy). The results suggest that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: (i) to get their inaccessible toy, the dogs gazed at their owners as if to trigger their attention; gaze alternation between the owner and the target direction, and two behaviours directed at the target were performed, apparently to indicate the location of the hidden toy; (ii) after the delivery of the toy, the dogs behaved as if they returned to the play routine, gazing at their owner whilst holding their toy. In conclusion, this study shows that dogs possess partially intentional non-verbal deictic abilities: they exhibit successive visual orienting between a partner and objects, apparent attention-getting behaviours, no sensitivity to the visual status of humans for communication, and persistence in (but no elaboration of) communicative behaviours when apparent attempts to “manipulate” the human partner fail.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2004). Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 88(3-4), 299–317.
Abstract: Previous studies have shown that dogs have developed a special sensitivity to the communicative signals and attentional states of humans. The aim of the current study was to further investigate what dogs know about the visual perception of humans and themselves. In the first two experiments we investigated whether dogs were sensitive to the properties of barriers as blocking the visual access of humans. We presented dogs with a situation in which a human forbade them to take a piece of food, but the type and orientation of the barrier allowed the dog to take the food undetected in some conditions. Dogs differentiated between effective and ineffective barriers, based on their orientation or the particular features of the barriers such as size or the presence of window. In the third study we investigated whether dogs know about what they themselves have seen. We presented subjects with two boxes and placed food in one of them. In the Seen condition the location of the food was shown to the dogs while in the Unseen condition dogs were prevented from seeing the destination of the food. Before selecting one of the boxes by pressing a lever, dogs had the opportunity to seek extra information regarding the contents of the boxes, which would be particularly useful in the condition in which they had not seen where the food was hidden. Dogs rarely used the opportunity to seek information about the contents of the box before making their choice in any condition. Therefore, we found no evidence suggesting that dogs have access to what they themselves have seen, which contrasts with the positive evidence about visual perspective taking in others from the first two experiments and previous studies.
|
|
|
|
Hazem, A. S. (1978). [Collective review: Salmonella paratyphi in animals and in the environment]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 85(7), 296–303.
|
|
|
|
Nowlan, S. S., & Deibel, R. H. (1967). Group Q streptococci. I. Ecology, serology, physiology, and relationship to established enterococci. J Bacteriol, 94(2), 291–296.
Abstract: The group Q streptococci possess unique serological and physiological characteristics which differentiate them from established enterococci. The group Q antigen was not demonstrable in all strains; however, all possessed the group D antigen. All group Q strains were physiologically similar regardless of whether or not they possessed the group Q antigen. These strains differed from the established enterococcal species, as they neither hydrolyzed arginine nor initiated growth in 1.0% methylene blue-milk. They also differed radically in the fermentation of various carbohydrates, especially the polyhydric sugar alcohols. The results indicate that the group Q streptococci constitute a unique taxonomic entity; the species designation Streptococcus avium sp. n. is suggested, owing to their characteristic occurrence in chicken fecal specimens.
|
|
|
|
Adler, L. L., & Adler, H. E. (1977). Ontogeny of observational learning in the dog (Canis familiaris). Dev Psychobiol, 10(3), 267–271.
Abstract: A split-litter technique was used to test observational learning in 4 litters of Miniature Dachshund puppies, 21, 28, 38, and 60 days old at the beginning of the experiment. In one side of a duplicate cage, one puppy of a litter, the demonstrator, learned to pull in a food cart on a runner by means of a ribbon, while another puppy, the observer, watched from an adjacent compartment, separated by a wire screen. Observational learning was demonstrated by the saving in time for the 1st trial when the observer was given the same problem to solve. Maturation, particularly the development of visual function and motor coordination, set a lower age limit for the emergence of observational learning.
|
|
|
|
Call, J., Brauer, J., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol, 117(3), 257–263.
Abstract: Twelve domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) were given a series of trials in which they were forbidden to take a piece of visible food. In some trials, the human continued to look at the dog throughout the trial (control condition), whereas in others, the human (a) left the room, (b) turned her back, (c) engaged in a distracting activity, or (d) closed her eyes. Dogs behaved in clearly different ways in most of the conditions in which the human did not watch them compared with the control condition, in which she did. In particular, when the human looked at them, dogs retrieved less food, approached it in a more indirect way, and sat (as opposed to laid down) more often than in the other conditions. Results are discussed in terms of domestic dogs' social-cognitive skills and their unique evolutionary and ontogenetic histories.
|
|
|
|
Giangaspero, A., Traversa, D., & Otranto, D. (2004). [Ecology of Thelazia spp. in cattle and their vectors in Italy]. Parassitologia, 46(1-2), 257–259.
Abstract: The genus Thelazia (Spirurida, Thelaziidae) includes a cosmopolitan group of eyeworm spirurids responsible for ocular infections in domestic and wild animals and transmitted by different species of muscids. Bovine thelaziosis is caused by Thelazia rhodesi Desmarest 1828, Thelazia gulosa Railliet & Henry 1910, and Thelazia skrjabini Erschow 1928, which occur in many countries; T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been reported mainly in the New World, while T. rhodesi is particularly common in the Old World. In Italy, T. rhodesi was reported in southern regions a long time ago and, recently, T. gulosa and T. skrjabini have been identified in autochthonous cattle first in Apulia and then in Sardinia. Thirteen species of Musca are listed as intermediate hosts of eyeworms, but only Musca autumnalis and Musca larvipara have been demonstrated to act as vectors of Thelazia in the ex-URSS, North America, ex-Czechoslovakia and more recently in Sweden. In Italy, after the reports of T. gulosa and T. skrjabini in southern regions, the intermediate hosts of bovine eyeworms were initially only suspected as the predominant secretophagous Muscidae collected from the periocular region of cattle with thelaziosis were the face flies, M. autumnalis and M. larvipara, followed by Musca osiris, Musca tempestiva and Musca domestica. The well-known constraints in the identification of immature eyeworms to species by fly dissection and also the time-consuming techniques used constitute important obstacles to epidemiological field studies (i.e. vector identification and/or role, prevalence and pattern of infection in flies, etc.). Molecular studies have recently permitted to further investigations into this area. A PCR-RFLP analysis of the ribosomal ITS-1 sequence was developed to differentiate the 3 species of Thelazia (i.e. T. gulosa, T. rhodesi and T. skrjabini) found in Italy, then a molecular epidemiological survey has recently been carried out in field conditions throughout five seasons of fly activity and has identified the role of M. autumnalis, M. larvipara, M. osiris and M. domestica as vectors of T. gulosa and of M. autumnalis and M. larvipara of T. rhodesi. Moreover, M. osiris was described, for the first time, to act as a vector of T. gulosa and M. larvipara of T. gulosa and T. rhodesi. The mean prevalence in the fly population examined was found to be 2.86%. The molecular techniques have opened new perspectives for further research on the ecology and epidemiology not only of Thelazia in cattle but also of other autochthonous species of Thelazia which have been also recorded in Italy, such as Thelazia callipaeda, which is responsible for human and canid ocular infection and Thelazia lacrymalis, the horse eyeworm whose epidemiological molecular studies are in progress.
|
|
|
|
Lea, S. E. G., Goto, K., Osthaus, B., & Ryan, C. M. E. (2006). The logic of the stimulus. Anim. Cogn., 9(4), 247–256.
Abstract: This paper examines the contribution of stimulus processing to animal logics. In the classic functionalist S-O-R view of learning (and cognition), stimuli provide the raw material to which the organism applies its cognitive processes-its logic, which may be taxon-specific. Stimuli may contribute to the logic of the organism's response, and may do so in taxon-specific ways. Firstly, any non-trivial stimulus has an internal organization that may constrain or bias the way that the organism addresses it; since stimuli can only be defined relative to the organism's perceptual apparatus, and this apparatus is taxon-specific, such constraints or biases will often be taxon-specific. Secondly, the representation of a stimulus that the perceptual system builds, and the analysis it makes of this representation, may provide a model for the synthesis and analysis done at a more cognitive level. Such a model is plausible for evolutionary reasons: perceptual analysis was probably perfected before cognitive analysis in the evolutionary history of the vertebrates. Like stimulus-driven analysis, such perceptually modelled cognition may be taxon-specific because of the taxon-specificity of the perceptual apparatus. However, it may also be the case that different taxa are able to free themselves from the stimulus logic, and therefore apply a more abstract logic, to different extents. This thesis is defended with reference to two examples of cases where animals' cognitive logic seems to be isomorphic with perceptual logic, specifically in the case of pigeons' attention to global and local information in visual stimuli, and dogs' failure to comprehend means-end relationships in string-pulling tasks.
|
|
|
|
Fiset, S., & Leblanc, V. (2007). Invisible displacement understanding in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): the role of visual cues in search behavior. Anim. Cogn., 10(2), 211–224.
Abstract: Recently, (Collier-Baker E, Davis JM, Suddendorf T (2004) J Comp Psychol 118:421-433) suggested that domestic dogs do not understand invisible displacements. In the present study, we further investigated the hypothesis that the search behavior of domestic dogs in invisible displacements is guided by various visual cues inherent to the task rather than by mental representation of an object's past trajectory. Specifically, we examined the role of the experimenter as a function of the final position of the displacement device in the search behavior of domestic dogs. Visible and invisible displacement problems were administered to dogs (N = 11) under two conditions. In the Visible-experimenter condition, the experimenter was visible whereas in the Concealed-experimenter condition, the experimenter was visibly occluded behind a large rigid barrier. Our data supported the conclusion that dogs do not understand invisible displacements but primarily search as a function of the final position of the displacement device and, to a lesser extent, the position of the experimenter.
|
|
