Many studies have looked at
how dogs respond to human communicative information. Here, we examined which
human communicative factors were important in influencing dogs’ responses.
Eleven healthy petdogs with no apparent aggressive behaviour toward
people were recruited. Five sensory conditions (all cues presented; either a visual,
an auditory, or an olfactory cue presented;no cues presented) were provided three times
randomly to each dog during the tests. All tests were video recorded, and both
the dogs’behaviour and time taken to reach the person when she
presented each of the sensory cue conditions were observed. Total rates of reaching
the person were as follows: 97.0% (all cues), 87.9% (auditory cues), 84.4%
(visual cues), 84.4% (olfactorycues), and 69.7% (no cues). The time taken for the dog
to notice the person in the box and then obtain a reward from her differed amongthe five conditions: all cues (6.00±0.32 s) and visual cues (6.02±0.91 s) were significantly faster than auditory cues
(18.56±9.57 s) and no cues (26.55±11.72 s). Thus the type of information input was
important in recognition of the person by the dogs and influenced the dogs’response times; visual cues appeared advantageous in
confirming the person’s presence.
References
[1]
Soproni, K., Miklósi, A., Topál, J. and Csányi, V. (2001) Comprehension of Human Communicative Signs in Pet Dogs (Canisfamiliaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115, 122-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122
[2]
Soproni, K., Miklósi, A., Topál, J. and Csányi, V. (2002) Dogs’ Responsiveness to Human Pointing Gestures. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116, 27-34.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.116.1.27
[3]
Houpt, A.K. (2005) Domestic Animal Behavior for Veterinarians and Animal Scientists. 4th Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Iowa, USA.
[4]
Mongillo, P., Bono, G., Regolin, L. and Marinelli, L. (2010) Selective Attention to Humans in Companion Dogs, Canisfamiliaris. Animal Behavior, 80, 1057-1063.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.09.014
[5]
Fukuzawa, M., Uetake, K. and Tanaka, T. (2010) Effect of Changing Human Visible Information on Obedience in Dogs (Canisfamiliaris). Animal Behaviour and Management, 46, 61-68.
[6]
Fukuzawa, M., Mills, D.S. and Cooper, J.J. (2005b) The Effect of Human Command Phonetic Characteristics on Auditory Cognition in Dogs (Canisfamiliaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119, 117-120.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.1.117
[7]
Brisbin, I.L. and Austad, N.S. (1991) Testing the Individual Odour Theory of Canine Olfaction. Animal Behavior, 42, 63-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80606-2
[8]
Gácsi, M., Miklósi, A., Varga, O., Topál, J. and Csányi, V. (2004) Are Readers of Our Face Readers of Our Minds? Dogs (Canisfamiliaris) Show Situation-Dependent Recognition of Human’s Attention. Animal Cognition, 7, 144-153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8
[9]
Fukuzawa, M., Mills, D.S. and Cooper, J.J. (2005a) More Than Just a Word: Non-Semantic Command Variables Affect Obedience in the Domestic Dog (Canisfamiliaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences, 91, 129-141.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.025
[10]
Concha, A., Mills, D.S., Feugier, A., Zulch, H., Guest, C., Harris, R. and Pike, W.T. (2014) Using Sniffing Behavior to Differentiate True Negative from False Negative Responses in Trained Scent-Detection Dogs. Chemical Senses, 39, 749-754.
https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bju045
[11]
Payne, E., Bennett, C.P. and McGreevy, D.P. (2015) Current Perspectives on Attachment and Bonding in the Dog-Human Dyad. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 8, 71-79. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S74972