Abstract: Horses have been considered to rely on human gesticular cues (McKinley and Sambrook 2000, Anim Cogn 3:13-22; and recently Maros et al. 2008, Anim Cogn 11:457-466), however large variability among individuals tested in two-ways object choice tasks was found. Part of the horses in those studies (40 and 26 %, respectively) even failed to pass adequately through the training session which preceded the testing phase and served to learn a horse to carry out a task. Therefore, we alternated the experimental design designed by McKinley and Sambrook (reduced number of testing trials to 10 per horse to keep its attention, applied just one, a dynamic-sustained pointing cue with touching the bucket, etc.), and tested an effect of training method, sex, age, and learning on proportion of correct choices. We hypothesised, that horses trained by “traditional” method (TTM) will get lower score than those experienced with “horsemanship-based” methods (HTM), being characterized by closer and more frequent human-horse contact and also extended exercising “from the ground” with frequent using of arms cues. Despite simplification of the methods, only about 60 % of tested horses passed through the training phase (i.e., learned to come to and upturn the bucket with hidden treat). Successful completion of training phase was reached regardless of age or sex of a horse, but by the training method; HTM horses ran better compared to TTM ones. No significant effect of age, sex, or learning (i.e., trial order within all 10), and training method as well was found on proportion of correct trials in the testing phase. Horses made a correct choice in more than 70% of trials. Individual scores ranged from 50 to 100 %. In conclusion, horses showed high level of comprehension of human pointing gesture, regardless of their sex or age. No effects of training method or learning process within a test suggest low impact of handling and learning on the level of comprehension at least of the most vivid human pointing gesture. Horses trained by methods based on “natural human-horse communication” did enhance cooperation with people.

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.

Abstract: Abstract Twenty domestic horses (Equus caballus) were tested for their ability to rely on different human gesticular cues in a two-way object choice task. An experimenter hid food under one of two bowls and after baiting, indicated the location of the food to the subjects by using one of four different cues. Horses could locate the hidden reward on the basis of the distal dynamic-sustained, proximal momentary and proximal dynamic-sustained pointing gestures but failed to perform above chance level when the experimenter performed a distal momentary pointing gesture. The results revealed that horses could rely spontaneously on those cues that could have a stimulus or local enhancement effect, but the possible comprehension of the distal momentary pointing remained unclear. The results are discussed with reference to the involvement of various factors such as predisposition to read human visual cues, the effect of domestication and extensive social experience and the nature of the gesture used by the experimenter in comparative investigations.

Abstract: Domestic dogs comprehend human gestural communication flexibly, particularly the pointing gesture. Here, we examine whether dogs interpret pointing informatively, that is, as simply providing information, or rather as a command, for example, ordering them to move to a particular location. In the first study a human pointed toward an empty cup. In one manipulation, the dog either knew or did not know that the designated cup was empty (and that the other cup actually contained the food). In another manipulation, the human (as authority) either did or did not remain in the room after pointing. Dogs ignored the human’s gesture if they had better information, irrespective of the authority’s presence. In the second study, we varied the level of authority of the person pointing. Sometimes this person was an adult, and sometimes a young child. Dogs followed children’s pointing just as frequently as they followed adults’ pointing (and ignored the dishonest pointing of both), suggesting that the level of authority did not affect their behavior. Taken together these studies suggest that dogs do not see pointing as an imperative command ordering them to a particular location. It is still not totally clear, however, if they interpret it as informative or in some other way.

Abstract: Dogs are known to consistently follow human pointing gestures. In this study, we asked whether dogs “automatically” do this or whether they flexibly adjust their behavior depending upon the reliability of the pointer, demonstrated in an immediately preceding event. We tested pet dogs in a version of the object choice task in which a piece of food was hidden in one of the two containers. In Experiment 1, Phase 1, an experimenter pointed at the baited container; the second container was empty. In Phase 2, after showing the contents of both containers to the dogs, the experimenter pointed at the empty container. In Phase 3, the procedure was exactly as in Phase 1. We compared the dogs’ responses to the experimenter’s pointing gestures in Phases 1 and 3. Most dogs followed pointing in Phase 1, but many fewer did so in Phase 3. In Experiment 2, dogs followed a new experimenter’s pointing in Phase 3 following replication of procedures of Phases 1 and 2 in Experiment 1. This ruled out the possibility that dogs simply lost motivation to participate in the task in later phases. These results suggest that not only dogs are highly skilled at understanding human pointing gestures, but also they make inferences about the reliability of a human who presents cues and consequently modify their behavior flexibly depending on the inference.