1 / 49

Dog Cognition

Dog Cognition. Some statistics on dogs as pets. 40% of U.S. households have at least 1 dog 70+ million dogs in U.S. alone Estimated $45 billion/year industry Why dogs? Behavior appears to be attuned to humans

hollie
Download Presentation

Dog Cognition

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dog Cognition

  2. Some statistics on dogs as pets • 40% of U.S. households have at least 1 dog • 70+ million dogs in U.S. alone • Estimated $45 billion/year industry • Why dogs? • Behavior appears to be attuned to humans • As companion animals, show “loyalty”, “compassion”, and other cognitive-emotional behaviors

  3. Why study dog cognition? • Unlike other domestic animals, wild conspecific is readily available • Data are available domestication of a wild canine species (Fox) which demonstrates evolution of many “dog-like” traits. • Appear to have cognitive abilities that are more advanced than most non-human primates. • Question is why? • Two competing theories to explain evolution of cognition in dogs: • Domestication hypothesis (Hare & Tomasello, 2005) • Two-Stage hypothesis (Wynne)

  4. Sensitivity to human social cues • Sensitivity to human social stimuli • reliably alter behavior in presence of such stimuli to obtain reinforcement • These behaviors emerge after instruction or mediation of human companion • Theory of Mind and Dogs: Heyes (1998): “…an animal with a theory of mind believes that mental states play a causal role in generating behavior and infers the presence of mental states in others by observing their appearance and behavior under various circumstances”. • Several sets of data point to such an ability in dogs

  5. Dogs can….. • Selectively avoid forbidden food, but grab it when the owner is not looking • Beg from an individual that can see them, rather than their owner who cannot. • Learn via Social learning and Imitation • Watch human for cues to obtain food/toy • Can be taught to imitate: “do it” • Follow a human point: sensitive to • Arm point • Head turning • Nodding • Bowing • Glancing in direction of target • Show word learning

  6. Is your choice my Choice? • Study by Prato-Previde, Marshall-Pescini and Valsecchi (Italians!). • Interested in how dogs’ owners may influence how dogs choose between bigger and smaller choice • Food choice is particularly strong • Most dogs food driven • Choose bigger (evolutionary drive, too!) • But, also want to “please” their owners

  7. What does other research say? • Dogs can count? • Numerical competence and ability to discriminate more and less • Dogs about as good at numerical competence as the great apes! • Greater degree of socialization = better skills • Follow human gestures • Can be fooled by humans pointing wrong direction • Dogs may perform actions that are counterproductive for themselves if humans ask for that action

  8. Why choose owner’s preference? • What has years of socialization selected dogs to do? • Attend to owners • “please” owners by obeying commands, doing what owners desire • Dogs are selected to both • Attend to humans • Choose most food

  9. Method • 54 dog-owner dyads • Mostly pure breeds • Some mixed breeds • Three different tasks: • Bigger smaller choice • Bigger smaller choice with human pointing to smaller • 1:1 choice with human pointing to a particular choice • Also gave the CBARQ assessment • Several subscales on aggression, excitation, separation anxiety, general fears • Did not feed dogs for several hours before study

  10. Results • Dependent variable: what choice the dogs made • Free choice condition • 74% chose large quantity more often • 18% chose smaller • 8% showed no preference

  11. Results • 1:1 condition: • 82% chose owners choice • 6% chose opposite plate • 12% showed no preference • Bigger/Smaller owners’ preference • 32% chose larger • 32% chose owner’s choice • 36% chose both equally often

  12. Other Effects • Gender differences: no differences • Age effects: older dogs were likely to be more accurate • Training Effects: no effects • Location effects: indoors better than outdoors • CBARQ: dogs more likely to follow owner preference were more likely to have higher separation anxiety scores

  13. Lupfer-Johnson and Ross study • Dogs, along with just a few other species, are able to learn from conspecifics • Human children • Red winged blackbirds • Dwarf (Siberian) but not Syrian hamsters • Rats • What is common element: All are social species • Social behaviors important for feeding • Even in dogs! • Pavlov’s work showed that feeding can be conditioned • Socializing while searching for food is advantageous • Help one another • All more likely to eat when work together • Working together increases likelihood of survival for individual and the group

  14. No conspecific learning data in dogs • So….this is what Gwen did….. • Examined whether food preferences could be acquired from interacting with recently fed conspecifics

  15. Method • 22 dogs in boarding facility (doggie day care) • 1 dog served as demonstrator for 12 total demonstrator-observer pairs • All other dogs served once as either demonstrator or observer • Used flavored food: basil or Thyme to dog food • Procedure • Demonstrator dog ate basil or thyme food in separate room • Then, entered group room and allowed to interact with observer dog for 20 minutes • Then observer dog offered both thyme and basil food; had to choose one to eat • Food weighed to determine how much they ate of each food.

  16. Results • One way ANOVA on the data • Dogs were significantly more likely to eat the flavor the demonstrator dog ate • Dogs with basil demonstrators ate significantly more basil food than those with thyme demonstrators (apparently thyme is icky)

  17. We are repeating this with deaf and hearing dogs • So far our results are interesting: • Use 4 flavors: basil, thyme, taragon and sage • Deaf to hearing: 61.75% • Deaf to deaf: 64.20% • Comparing to Lupfer-Johnson study: their dogs ate 68.16% • Suggests deaf dogs also share food preferences with conspecifics

  18. Why study dog cognition/behavior? • Dogs are an integral part of life with humans • 60% of households have a dog • Estimated that Americans will spend $52.87 billion on pets in 2012 • Pet spending has increased every year since it was $17 billion in 1994. • Dogs used professionally • Assistance dogs • Therapy dogs • Schools, hospitals, many many settings! • People feel strong bond with dogs • Recent research suggests dogs may function cognitively as high or higher than the great apes (our closest genetic relative)

  19. Proximity to humans = important factor • Domestication correlates with proximity to humans • Domestication theory suggests that dogs are highly cognitive because of breeding/genetic changes that have evolved over the years (Hare, 2012) • But: need to examine how experience plays a role (sounds like old Skinner Chomsky debate on language!) • Hard to get proper comparison group • Wild wolves with no contact with humans (dangerous) • If use tame wolves, have the human issue • Wild dogs also hard to work with! • Studies which have attempted to account for human proximity have found that contact with humans is an important factor • Shelter dogs show more “wild-like” behavior; increased fear and aggression • Dogs socialized after sensitive period show stronger socialization and cognition behaviors.

  20. Conditioning/:Learning Experiences • With human contact comes opportunity to become conditioned to human behavior • Serendipity in learning human social cues: Get reinforced more often! • Domestic dogs learn human cues faster than wolves • Domestic dogs are reinforced for appropriate response to humans almost constantly • Learn how to “manipulate” owners • “guilty look” = I look “guilty” then I get back with the pack • Not necessarily have human emotion with it, but show appropriate response due to conditioning

  21. Two stage hypothesis • Sensitivity of canid to human social cues depends on 2 types of ontogenic experiences • Interactions with humans during sensitivity developmental period leading to acceptance of humans as social companions • Learning that is not restricted to one particular phase of development • Learn to use location and movement of human body parts to locate sought-after objects • Domestication not qualitatively change behavior, but has changed quantity and duration of certain behaviors

  22. Predictions of Two-Stage theory • Both wild and domestic canids have • phylogenetic prerequisites to respond to human social signals • have mutually beneficial interactions with humans • Preparedness (Seligman, 1967; also Bolles 1967; Timberlake, 2001) • Biological boundaries • Prepared to attend to certain cues because these increase probability of survival • But: this preparedness to respond requires experience to elicit and shape beneficial behaviors • Dog will become socialized to whatever it is around: • Other dogs • Sheep or cattle • Humans • Learns behavior that works the best

  23. Why is this important? • Drives research questions: • Is it nature or nurture that is more important • How does nature interact with nurture • Suggests need to examine developmental stages more closely • Authors caution: standardization of methods • Several research questions begin to emerge: • Breed differences? • Experience Differences? Shelter vs. fostering dogs for adoption • Deaf, blind or deaf/blind versus typical dogs: What is effect on socialization? • What cognitive abilities do dogs have? • Also drives how we interact, socialize and train our dogs: • Understand the importance of early socialization • Allows for development of better treatment of shelter dogs, rescue dogs, etc. • Change to positive training methods as we understand the cognitive ability of dogs

  24. Differences in Social and Cognitive Behavior between Congenitally Deaf and Hearing Dogs. Valeri Farmer-Dougan, Ph.D. Canine Behavior and Cognition Laboratory Department of Psychology Illinois State University

  25. WHY deaf dogs? • Congenitally deaf and/or blind dogs are an increasing population in animal shelters, foster programs, and rescue organizations. • The number of blind dogs is estimated at approximately 300,000, but there are very little reliable data; the majority are due to disease or old age. • Estimates of the number of deaf dogs in the US in 2010 suggest about 35,000 bilaterally deaf dogs, and approximately 120,000 dogs with unilateral loss. • This represents approximately 5% of canine pets (Deaf Dogs Forever, 2010). • Congenitally deaf and blind dogs typically result from genetic mutations. Many of these are breed specific • Collie Eye • Double Merles • These mutations are often tied to desirable breed-specific traits such as coat coloring.

  26. How are Deaf Dogs Different? • Deaf and blind dogs, unlike typical dogs, are unable to benefit from early experience regarding vocalized/visual social interactions, but otherwise appear to develop normally. • Uncovering behavioral differences between hearing and deaf or deaf/blind will allow researchers to uncover how deaf and blind dogs compensate for the loss of vocalized and visual cues during social interactions. • Further, these data provide a basis for understanding innate versus learned socialization patterns. • Helps establish which visual and auditory cues are innate. • Helps establish which cues may be learned.

  27. The Deaf Dog Project • Today’s presentation will briefly report on several experiments recently conducted in the Canine Behavior and Cognition lab at Illinois State University. • Brief results from investigations of temperament, cognition and social behavior will be presented: • Some studies focus on Australian Shepherds to eliminate breed differences. • All compare typical hearing to deaf and/or deaf/blind dogs. • Data will in include results from: • A survey of owners of typical and deaf, blind, and deaf/blind dogs • Behavioral and temperament assessments • Performance on a choice task with humans. • Performance on a food choice task with conspecifics. • Social problem solving task: humans and other dogs. • Dog to Dog Play assessments.

  28. CBARQ: Differences between deaf and typical dogs.Undergraduate assistants: Mandy Quick, Kelsey Harper and Kristin Schmidt • CBARQ survey: 5 main subscales: • Aggression; Fear/Anxiety; Excitability; Separation-related behavior; Attachment • Further divided into 3 subscales: • Stranger-directed behavior • Owner directed behavior • Object-directed behavior. • Also: Subset of 20 items that appear to predict canine behavior but do not load on the main 5 subscales. • Online survey participants: • International Owners of 183 congenitally deaf/blind dogs • 98 congenitally deaf/hearing impaired • 32 congenitally blind/low vision dogs • 53 congenitally deaf/blind dogs • 277 dogs with no disability

  29. How categorize data? • Collapsed into 5 hierarchical grouping defined by distinct genetic units: • Ancient/Asian ; Herding; Hunting; Mastiff ; Modern breeds • Based categories on work completed by Robert K. Wayne at UCLA and Elaine A. Ostrander at NIH, published in 2007. • These groupings are based on finding that dog breeds • express specific phenotypic traits and • vary in behavior and the incidence of genetic disease • based upon genomic-wide scans linking breeds within a group.

  30. Results • A multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the data using the 5 breed categories and disabled/typical categorization as the independent variables. • The dependent variables included in the analysis included • age • the 5 scales and 3 subscales of the C-BARQ (aggression, anxiety, separation anxiety, excitement, and attachment; stranger, owner and object directed). • the 20 miscellaneous subscales (e.g., chases cats, stares at invisible objects) that do not load on the 5 major factors but do appear to be related to behavioral differences across dogs

  31. CANINE-ALITYTMAND SAFERTMASSESSMENTS AS BEHAVIORAL PREDICTORS TO DISTINQUISH DEAF AND HEARING DOGSUndergraduate Assistants: Kelsey Harper and Craig Taheny • Participants: 5 hearing and 9 deaf Australian Shepherd dogs • Procedure: Two assessments were given to the dogs: • Canine-alityTMAssessment: Left Alone, Greeting, Crate (optional), Play test, Food motivation, Manners • The scores from each of the sub tests are summed, to yield a total score. • A score of 0 to 6.5 indicate mild activity dogs: • A score of 7 to 12.5 indicated moderate activity dogs: • A score of 13-17.5 indicated high activity dogs. • SAFERTM assessment: • 7-item canine aggression assessment designed to assess the probability of future aggression in dogs age six months and older.: • Look; Sensitivity; Tag; Paw ; Squeeze; Food Behavior; Toy Behavior; Dog-to-Dog behavior • The scores are summed, to yield a total score

  32. Results • Two multiple regression analyses were conducted on the data. • The first analysis used the subtests and total score for the SAFER and Canine-ality tests to predict deaf versus hearing dogs. • Results found only one significant factor which reliably predicted deafness: Canine-alityLEFT ALONE • R=.702, F(1,14)=12.64, p=.004, ß=.702. • Deaf dogs were more likely to get higher scores on the left alone subscale. • The second analysis was used to examine potential gender differences across the dogs. • R=.593, F(1,14)=7.06, p=.02, ß=0.593. • Male dogs were more likely to receive a higher (poorer) score on the Canine-ality Manners subscale. • The correlation for predicting gender was not conducted on the data, as most of the dogs were approximately 1 year old.

  33. OWNERS’ EFFECTS ON PET DOG PERFORMANCE DURING A FOOD CHOICE TASK:Undergraduate Research Assistants: Dana Fredrickson, Kelsey Harper and Patrick Donlan • Participants: 10 congenitally deaf and 10 hearing dogs. • Procedure: 2 quantities of food or balls were presented on 2plates by a human demonstrator: • Small: single piece of food or single ball. • Large: 8 pieces of food or 4 balls. • Three conditions were tested: • Free choice test: Dog was free to choose either plate. • Owner showing clear preference for one plate, with both plates containing the small amount (1 piece) of food. • Owner showing clear preference for small quantity compared to the larger quantity of food. • Presentation order of the plates (left or right) was randomized, as was the owner preference for Condition 2. Replication of: Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiarisis) performance in a food choice task. Animal Cogntion, 11, 167-174.

  34. RESULTS • A repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the data set. • Results found: • A significant effect of condition, F(2,16)=4.34, p=.03. • The difference between deaf and hearing dogs approached significance, F(1,8)=3.44, p=.10. • The interaction was not significant, F(2,16)=1.09, p=.36. • Deaf dogs were more easily swayed to choose the smaller than typical dogs • This may be due to deaf dogs’ higher degree of attachment to their owners.

  35. ACQUIRING FOOD PREFERENCES FROM INTERACTION WITH RECENTLY FED CONSPECIFICS: Hearing vs. Deaf Dogs.Undergraduate Research Assistants: Sasha Kaplan and Kellie Swoboda • Participants: 8 deaf and 6 hearing dogs. • Dogs served as both the demonstrator and the recipient. • Four food conditions: Deaf demonstrator to Deaf recipient; Deaf demonstrator to Hearing recipient; Hearing demonstrator to Deaf recipient; Hearing demonstrator to Hearing • The demonstrator dog was taken into the testing room presented with 2 foods; Dog pairs were then allowed to socialize for 10 minutes. • Following the 10 minute socialization period, the recipient dog was lead into the testing room and presented with 2 dishes with 100 g of food. Replication of: Lupfer-Johnson, G. & Ross, J. (2007). Dogs acquire food preferences from interacting with recently fed conspecifics. Behavioral Processes, 74, 104-106.

  36. RESULTS • Significant difference for same/different food, F(1,12)=45.91, p=.049. • Significant difference in amount consumed by deaf or hearing dogs, F(1,12)=29.66, p<.001. • The group by same/different food interaction was not significant, F(1,12), 0.07, N.S. • Dogs ate more of the food presented to the demonstrator dog, regardless of whether they were deaf or hearing but deaf dogs ate more overall.

  37. DEAF OR HEARING AS A VARIABLE PREDICTING SOCIAL LEARNING PERFORMANCE IN THE DOG Undergraduate Assistants: Garrett Hartzell and Tim Boroski • Subjects: 5 deaf and 4 hearing dogs and their owners or student trainers. • Apparatus: A V-shaped opaque fence: 1.22 M long and 0.91 M tall was placed at an 90 degree angle on the platform. • Procedure: • 3 repeated 1 minute trials with 3 min. inter-trial intervals • Condition 1: The experimenter placed a toy behind the fence by tossing it over the upper edge. The dog was prompted to go retrieve the toy. • Condition 2: The procedure above is repeat, but a demonstrator dog is used. • Condition 3: The procedure used in condition two is repeated, but the demonstrator is now a human. Replication of: Kundey, S.M.A, De Los Reyes, A., Royer, E., Molina, S., Monnier, B., German, R., & Coshun, A. (2011). Reputation-like inference in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 14, 291-302.

  38. Results: • Results found that deaf dogs were less accurate at solving the barrier task alone than hearing dogs: t(7)=2.43, p=.05. • Results did approach significance for the model condition. Deaf dogs were less likely to follow the model than hearing dogs: t(7)=-2.45, p=.07. • Results found no differences between deaf and hearing dogs for the human model condition. All dogs solved all three trials by following the human around the barrier.

  39. DIFFERENCES IN PLAY BETWEEN DEAF AND HEARING DOGS)Undergraduate Assistants: Jacquelyn Johnson and Terry Coughlin • Subjects: 7 deaf dogs and 7 hearing dogs • Dogs were videotaped during 5 minute free play • Dogs were paired such that play bouts are recorded for: • Deaf dog and deaf dog: N=23 pairings • Deaf dog to hearing dog: N=12 pairings • Data analysis: • videotape sessions were analyzed by dividing the play sessions into 10 sec-bouts. • Undergraduate research assistants (URAs) watched the videos using Horowitz’s scoring system: • Play signals: • Attention getting play behavior • Non-attention getting play behavior • Other non play specific behaviors Replication of: Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107-118.

  40. Results: • A Mann-Whitney Ranks test, a nonparametric version of t-tests, were used to assess differences between deaf and hearing dogs for each of the play behaviors. • Significant differences were found in: • Play bows: :z=-2.197, p=0.28 • Hearing dogs showed MORE play bows • Bow heads: z=-1.97, p=.047 • Hearing dogs bowed away head more. • Turn body aways: z=-2.114, p=.035 • Hearing dogs showed MORE turning body away to stop play. • Differences approached significance for: • Chase me: z=-1.89, p=0.06 • Hearing dogs chased more • Toy play: z=-1.905, z=.06 • Deaf dogs showed MORE solitary toy play.

  41. Summary of the Data • Data clearly demonstrate that deaf/blind dogs as a group are highly trainable and less likely to show increased aggression and excitability. • On tasks where there is no difference between deaf and hearing dogs (e.g., olfactory tasks), deaf and hearing dogs perform nearly identically. • On tasks where deaf dogs have deficits (e.g., situations requiring auditory or visual cues), deaf and deaf/blind dogs show significant differences in behavior compared to typical dogs. • Our data do suggest that deaf dogs may be more likely to show: • Somewhat increased separation anxiety, but not overall anxiety. • Stronger attachments to their human. • More reliance on human signaling. • Poorer social interactions with other dogs, but not humans. • It appears that typical dogs do not perceive that deaf and blind dogs cannot hear or see their typical social signaling, particularly during play. • Interestingly, these differences often parallel the differences observed in humans with deafness and blindness .

  42. Conclusions • It is hoped, then, that the present data set • Will provide guidance for veterinarians, animal behaviorists, or others who may counsel owners and breeders of deaf, blind or deaf/blind dogs • provide the necessary scientific evidence to alter the position of the AKC and breed specific groups which promotes euthanasia of these dogs. • In place of a euthanasia policy, it is hoped that breed-specific clubs and organizations will emphasize • Improved breeding policies and procedures • Adoption rather than euthanasia of inadvertently bred deaf dogs • Inclusion of these dogs in obedience, rally and agility competitions

More Related