Going back to "basics": Harlow's learning set task with wolves and dogs.

To survive and reproduce, animals need to behave adaptively by adjusting their behavior to their environment, with learning facilitating some of these processes. Dogs have become a go-to model species in comparative cognition studies, making our understanding of their learning skills paramount at multiple levels, not only with regards to basic research on their cognitive skills and the effects of domestication, but also with applied purposes such as training. In order to tackle these issues, we tested similarly raised wolves and dogs in a serial learning task inspired by Harlow's "learning set." In Phase 1, different pairs of objects were presented to the animals, one of which was baited while the other was not. Both species' performance gradually improved with each new set of objects, showing that they "learnt to learn," but no differences were found between the species in their learning speed. In Phase 2, once subjects had learned the association between one of the objects and the food reward, the contingencies were reversed and the previously unrewarded object of the same pair was now rewarded. Dogs' performance in this task seemed to be better than wolves', albeit only when considering just the first session of each reversal, suggesting that the dogs might be more flexible than wolves. Further research (possibly with the aid of refined methods such as computer-based tasks) would help ascertain whether these differences between wolves and dogs are persistent across different learning tasks.

Dogs understand the role of a human partner in a cooperative task.

Humans are exceptionally flexible in cooperation, partly due to our ability to recognize the roles of cooperative partners. While some non-human animals understand the need for a partner in such interactions, it is unclear whether they grasp the consequences of their partner's actions and adjust accordingly. Previous studies utilizing economic games with non-human animals yielded mixed results. We investigated dogs, known for their close cooperation with humans, in a stag hunt game. Dogs could cooperate for better rewards or defect for lower ones, while their human partners would either cooperate, never cooperate, or act randomly. We control for attraction to food, side bias, and local enhancement. Dogs were more likely to coordinate with their partners when it led to better rewards, suggesting that they understood their partner's actions. By highlighting this cognitive skill in dogs, we advance our knowledge of the intricate mechanisms driving cooperative behavior in non-human animals.

Street-wise dog testing: Feasibility and reliability of a behavioural test battery for free-ranging dogs in their natural habitat.

Behavioural scientists are increasingly recognizing the need to conduct experiments in the wild to achieve a comprehensive understanding of their species' behaviour. For domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), such progress has been slow. While the life in human households is often regarded as dogs' natural habitat, this classification disregards most of the global dog population. The value of experimentally testing free-ranging dogs' cognition and behaviour is increasingly being recognized, but no comprehensive test batteries have been conducted on those populations so far, leaving the feasibility and reliability of such endeavours unknown. This study is the starting point to fill this gap by pioneering and validating an elaborate behavioural test battery on street-living dogs. Therein, six common temperament tests (human-/conspecific-directed sociability, neophobia, tractability) and dog-human communication paradigms (pointing, inaccessible object) were adapted to the street conditions. We evaluated the feasibility of the test battery, the coding reliability of the measures, and investigated their temporal consistency in a retest of the same individuals six weeks later (test-retest reliability). The test battery proved feasible with most dogs participating in all subtests, and it showed satisfactory inter- and intra-rater reliability (0.84 and 0.93 respectively), providing evidence that complex behavioural tests can be conducted even in highly variable street conditions. Retesting revealed that some behaviours could be captured reliably across time, especially when the subtest was particularly engaging (e.g., human approach, point following). In contrast, the low retest reliability for subtests relying on sustained novelty and behaviours that were highly susceptible to disturbances (e.g., gazing) reflects the difficulties of street dog testing, including standardisation in disturbance-prone environments, ecology-dependent adaptation of methods, and intrinsic differences between pet and free-ranging dogs. With some adaptations, this test battery can be valuable in investigating cognition and behavioural profiles in such an understudied population as free-ranging dogs.

The Joint Simon task is not joint for capuchin monkeys.

Human cooperation can be facilitated by the ability to create a mental representation of one's own actions, as well as the actions of a partner, known as action co-representation. Even though other species also cooperate extensively, it is still unclear whether they have similar capacities. The Joint Simon task is a two-player task developed to investigate this action co-representation. We tested brown capuchin monkeys (Sapajus [Cebus] apella), a highly cooperative species, on a computerized Joint Simon task and found that, in line with previous research, the capuchins' performance was compatible with co-representation. However, a deeper exploration of the monkeys' responses showed that they, and potentially monkeys in previous studies, did not understand the control conditions, which precludes the interpretation of the results as a social phenomenon. Indeed, further testing to investigate alternative explanations demonstrated that our results were due to low-level cues, rather than action co-representation. This suggests that the Joint Simon task, at least in its current form, cannot determine whether non-human species co-represent their partner's role in joint tasks.

Some dogs can find the payoff-dominant outcome in the Assurance game.

Studies on coordination often present animals with the choice of either cooperating or remaining inactive; however, in nature, animals may also choose to act alone. This can be modeled with the Assurance game, an economic game that has recently been used to explore decision-making in primates. We investigated whether dyads of pet dogs coordinate in the Assurance game. Pairs were presented with two alternatives: they could individually solve an apparatus baited with a low-value reward (Hare) or they could coordinate to solve a cooperative apparatus baited with a high-value reward for each dog (Stag). All individuals matched their partner's choices, but after controlling for side bias, only four out of eleven dyads consistently coordinated on the payoff-dominant strategy (Stag-Stag). Thus, some dogs are capable of finding coordinated outcomes, as do primates, at least when their partner's actions are visible and coordination results in the biggest payoff for both individuals.

Observational spatial memory in wolves and dogs.

Social learning is highly adaptive in transmitting essential information between individuals in many species. While several mechanisms have been observed, less is known about how much animals can remember. However, results on observational spatial memory among caching species, i.e. a form of social learning allowing individuals to remember and pilfer food caches made by others, suggest that this ability correlates with their social organization. Both wolves and their domesticated form, dogs, are social species known to make food caches, and previous studies have shown that they both can use observational spatial memory abilities to find hidden food. In order to test how much socially transmitted information wolves and dogs can remember, we tested both species in a task requiring them to find 4, 6 or 8 caches after they observed a human hiding food items, or after a control condition where they could not observe the hiding. We found that both wolves and dogs retrieved more caches and were more efficient for the first few caches if they observed the hiding than in the control condition, suggesting that they did not simply rely on scent to find the rewards. Interestingly, wolves outperformed dogs irrespective of whether the caching could be observed or not. We suggest that this result is due to a difference in motivation/persistence between wolves and dogs rather than observational spatial memory.

Village dogs match pet dogs in reading human facial expressions.

Most studies on dogs' cognitive skills in understanding human communication have been conducted on pet dogs, making them a role model for the species. However, pet dogs are just a minor and particular sample of the total dog world population, which would instead be better represented by free-ranging dogs. Since free-ranging dogs are still facing the selective forces of the domestication process, they indeed represent an important study subject to investigate the effect that such a process has had on dogs' behavior and cognition. Despite only a few studies on free-ranging dogs (specifically village dogs) having been conducted so far, the results are intriguing. In fact, village dogs seem to place a high value on social contact with humans and understand some aspects of humans' communication. In this study we aimed to investigate village dogs' ability in understanding a subtle human communicative cue: human facial expressions, and compared them with pet dogs, who have already provided evidence of this social skill. We tested whether subjects were able to distinguish between neutral, happy, and angry human facial expressions in a test mimicking a potential real-life situation, where the experimenter repeatedly performed one facial expression while eating some food, and ultimately dropped it on the ground. We found evidence that village dogs, as well as pet dogs, could distinguish between subtle human communicative cues, since they performed a higher frequency of aversive gazes (looking away) in the angry condition than in the happy condition. However, we did not find other behavioral effects of the different conditions, likely due to the low intensity of the emotional expression performed. We suggest that village dogs' ability in distinguishing between human facial expressions could provide them with an advantage in surviving in a human-dominated environment.

Perceived reward attainability may underlie dogs' responses in inequity paradigms.

Dogs have repeatedly been shown to give their paw to an experimenter more times for no reward when a rewarded conspecific partner is absent than when a rewarded conspecific is present, thereby showing inequity aversion. However, rather than being inequity averse, dogs might give their paw more when a partner is absent due to the experimenter's procedure in which they move food in front of the subject to mimic feeding a partner. This action could increase subjects' perception of reward attainability. We tested this hypothesis by introducing an improved type of control condition in which subjects were unrewarded for giving the paw in the presence of a rewarded box, a condition that more closely resembles the inequity condition. Inequity averse subjects' performance did not differ based on whether the partner was another dog or a box. Moreover, these subjects gave the paw more times when no partner was present and the experimenter mimicked the feeding of a partner than when rewards were placed in the box. These results suggest that responses in the previous studies were inflated by subjects' increased perception of reward attainability when no partner was present and, therefore, over-exaggerated dogs' propensity to give up due to inequity aversion.

The Power of Discourse: Associations between Trainers' Speech and the Responses of Socialized Wolves and Dogs to Training.

In a previous study, we found that Positive Reinforcement Training reduced cortisol of wolves and dogs; however, this effect varied across trainer-animal dyads. Here we investigate whether and how the trainers' use of speech may contribute to this effect. Dogs' great interest in high-pitched, intense speech (also known as Dog Directed Speech) has already been reported, but whether and how wolves respond similarly/differently to voice characteristics has never been studied before. We analyzed 270 training sessions, conducted by five trainers, with nine mixed-breed dogs and nine wolves, all human-socialized. Through Generalized Linear Mixed Models, we analyzed the effects of (a) three speech categories (nice, neutral, reprehensive) and laugh; and (b) acoustic characteristics of trainers' voices on animals' responses (correct responses, latency, orientation, time at less than 1 m, non-training behaviors, tail position/movements, cortisol variation). In both subspecies, tail wagging occurred more often in sessions with longer durations of nice speech, and less often in sessions with reprehensive speech. For dogs, the duration of reprehensive speech within a session was also negatively related to correct responses. For wolves, retreat time was associated with more reprehensive speech, whereas duration of nice speech was positively associated with time spent within one meter from the trainer. In addition, most dog behavioral responses were associated with higher average intonations within sessions, while wolf responses were correlated with lower intonations within sessions. We did not find any effects of the variables considered on cortisol variation. Our study highlights the relevance of voice tone and speech in a training context on animals' performances and emotional reactions.

Genetic distance from wolves affects family dogs' reactions towards howls.

Domestication dramatically changes behaviour, including communication, as seen in the case of dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus). We tested the hypothesis that domestication may affect an ancient, shared communication form of canids, the howling which seems to have higher individual variation in dogs: the perception and usage of howls may be affected by the genetic relatedness of the breeds to their last common ancestor with wolves ('root distance') and by other individual features like age, sex, and reproductive status. We exposed 68 purebred dogs to wolf howl playbacks and recorded their responses. We identified an interaction between root distance and age on the dogs' vocal and behavioural responses: older dogs from more ancient breeds responded longer with howls and showed more stress behaviours. Our results suggest that domestication impacts vocal behaviour significantly: disintegrating howling, a central, species-specific communication form of canids and gradually eradicating it from dogs' repertoire.

Dogs take into account the actions of a human partner in a cooperative task.

Humans stand out for their capacity to flexibly cooperate, possibly because they understand their partners' role. Researchers have explored if such understanding is unique to humans by assessing whether non-human species wait to manipulate a cooperative apparatus until a delayed partner arrives. If animals do wait, then it is assumed that they recognize the need for a partner. However, success in these tasks may be the result of social facilitation, while failure may be due to poor inhibitory control. Moreover, this approach does not test if animals take their partners' actions into account. Here we trained dogs to press a button simultaneously with their human partner. Afterwards, we tested them in several conditions to disentangle which elements of their partner's behaviour they take into account. Dogs waited to press the button until the delayed partner arrived, the button was available to the partner and the partner acted (pressed the button). We found no relationship between inhibitory control and success. We conclude that dogs are not merely reacting to the presence of their human partners, but are also taking their actions into account when coordinating with them.

Similar behavioral but different endocrine responses to conspecific interactions in hand-raised wolves and dogs.

Domestication has altered dogs' conspecific social organization compared to their closest, non-domesticated relatives, gray wolves. Wolves live in packs whose survival depends on coordinated behavior, but dogs rely less on conspecifics, which predicts greater cohesiveness in wolf than dog packs. Endocrine correlates such as oxytocin and glucocorticoids modulate group cohesion resulting in species-specific differences in social interactions. We found that although wolves' and dogs' observable behavioral reactions to a territorial threat and separation from the pack were similar, hormonal responses differed. Wolves' but not dogs' oxytocin and glucocorticoid concentrations correlated positively with territorial behaviors and only wolves showed increased glucocorticoid concentrations after separation from their pack. Together, results suggest stronger emotional activation to threats to group integrity in wolves than dogs, in line with their socio-ecology.

Selective responding to human ostensive communication is an early developing capacity of domestic dogs.

Ostensive communication, communication motivated not only by an informative intention, but also by an intention to make this informative intention overt, is thought to be restricted to human signalers and to rely on metacognitive skills. On the receiver side, human infants and dogs have been found to selectively respond to human ostensive communication, even if it remains unclear whether they are able to discern the underlying intentions. At present only animals with extensive experiences with humans have demonstrated a response to human attention calling, suggesting that this sensitivity may be an exaptation of communicative skills allowing for context-specific responding to intraspecific signals. We investigated whether dogs could respond to subtle cues of ostension without clear attention-calling and how this skill varies across age and with different human-given signals. Using a two-way object choice task, we evaluated whether dogs of different ages followed, with their gaze and with their choices, ostensive human pointing and gaze more than a formally similar but non-ostensive gesture and a directional gaze cue. Dogs followed pointing more than gaze, and older dogs followed the directional cues more accurately than younger dogs. Independent of cue type, we found that dogs of all ages responded to human ostensive signals more than similar directional cues motivated by no communicative intention. Given that dogs are sensitive to subtle cues of ostensive communication from an early age, and that this does not appear to change with age, we suggest that living close to humans may have selected for this skill. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Like human infants, dogs followed human ostensive cues more than non-ostensive cues both by their approach behavior and their differential looking behavior. Dogs differentiated between ostensive and non-ostensive human cues from an early age on, without their attention having been called explicitly in advance. Dogs followed human-given pointing cues more than human-given gaze cues, independent of age or intention (ostensive or non-ostensive). The early developing sensitivity of dogs to human ostension suggests that living close to humans may have selected for this skill.

Wolves and dogs fail to form reputations of humans after indirect and direct experience in a food-giving situation.

Reputation is a key component in social interactions of group-living animals and appears to play a role in the establishment of cooperation. Animals can form reputations of individuals by directly interacting with them or by observing them interact with a third party, i.e., eavesdropping. Previous research has focused on whether dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) can eavesdrop on humans because of their ability to cooperate with humans, however the results are mixed and if they can eavesdrop, it is unknown whether this ability evolved during the domestication process or whether it was inherited from their ancestor, wolves (Canis lupus). Our study investigated whether equally hand-raised, pack-living dogs and wolves can form reputations of humans in a food-giving situation through indirect and/or direct experience. The experimental procedure comprised three parts: baseline (to test whether the subject preferred a person prior to the experiment), observation and testing. In the observation phase, the subject observed two humans interact with a dog demonstrator-one acted generously and fed the dog, and the other acted selfishly and refused to feed the dog. The subject could then choose which person to approach in the test phase. In the following experience phase, the animals interacted directly with the same two humans who behaved either in a generous or selfish manner. Then, they were again given a choice whom to approach. We found that dogs and wolves, at the group level, did not differentiate between a generous or selfish partner after indirect or direct experience, but wolves were more attentive towards the generous person during the observation phase and some dogs and wolves did prefer the generous partner, at least after indirect and direct experience was combined. Our study suggests that reputation formation may be more difficult than expected for animals and we emphasise the importance of context when studying reputation formation in animals.

Comparing wolves and dogs: current status and implications for human 'self-domestication'.

Based on claims that dogs are less aggressive and show more sophisticated socio-cognitive skills compared with wolves, dog domestication has been invoked to support the idea that humans underwent a similar 'self-domestication' process. Here, we review studies on wolf-dog differences and conclude that results do not support such claims: dogs do not show increased socio-cognitive skills and they are not less aggressive than wolves. Rather, compared with wolves, dogs seek to avoid conflicts, specifically with higher ranking conspecifics and humans, and might have an increased inclination to follow rules, making them amenable social partners. These conclusions challenge the suitability of dog domestication as a model for human social evolution and suggest that dogs need to be acknowledged as animals adapted to a specific socio-ecological niche as well as being shaped by human selection for specific traits.

Is dogs' heritable performance in socio-cognitive tasks truly social?

Recently, Bray et al. (2021) showed that behavioural performance in cognitive tasks involving humans is highly heritable in dog puppies. Although the paper shows substantial heritability of specific behavioural traits, the absence of control conditions does not allow for strong support of the authors' claim that the cognitive performance they measured represents a special sensitivity to human cooperative-communicative acts.

The evolution of quantitative sensitivity.

The ability to represent approximate quantities appears to be phylogenetically widespread, but the selective pressures and proximate mechanisms favouring this ability remain unknown. We analysed quantity discrimination data from 672 subjects across 33 bird and mammal species, using a novel Bayesian model that combined phylogenetic regression with a model of number psychophysics and random effect components. This allowed us to combine data from 49 studies and calculate the Weber fraction (a measure of quantity representation precision) for each species. We then examined which cognitive, socioecological and biological factors were related to variance in Weber fraction. We found contributions of phylogeny to quantity discrimination performance across taxa. Of the neural, socioecological and general cognitive factors we tested, cortical neuron density and domain-general cognition were the strongest predictors of Weber fraction, controlling for phylogeny. Our study is a new demonstration of evolutionary constraints on cognition, as well as of a relation between species-specific neuron density and a particular cognitive ability. This article is part of the theme issue 'Systems neuroscience through the lens of evolutionary theory'.

Bonded by nature: Humans form equally strong and reciprocated bonds with similar raised dogs and wolves.

Introduction: To explore human-canid relationships, we tested similarly socialized and raised dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus) and their trainers in a wildlife park. The aims of our study were twofold: first, we aimed to test which factors influenced the relationships that the trainers formed with the dogs or wolves and second, we investigated if the animals reacted to the trainers in accordance with the trainers' perceptions of their relationship. Methods: To achieve these goals, we assessed the relationships using a human-animal bonds survey, which the trainers used to rate the bonds between themselves and their peers with the canids, and by observing dyadic trainer-canid social interactions. Results: Our preliminary results given the small sample size and the set-up of the research center, demonstrate that our survey was a valid way to measure these bonds since trainers seem to perceive and agree on the strength of their bonds with the animals and that of their fellow trainers. Moreover, the strength of the bond as perceived by the trainers was mainly predicted by whether or not the trainer was a hand-raiser of the specific animal, but not by whether or not the animal was a wolf or a dog. In the interaction test, we found that male animals and animals the trainers felt more bonded to, spent more time in proximity of and in contact with the trainers; there was no difference based on species. Discussion: These results support the hypothesis that wolves, similarly to dogs, can form close relationships with familiar humans when highly socialized (Canine Cooperation Hypothesis). Moreover, as in other studies, dogs showed more submissive behaviors than wolves and did so more with experienced than less experienced trainers. Our study suggests that humans and canines form differentiated bonds with each other that, if close, are independent of whether the animal is a wolf or dog.

Dogs fail to reciprocate the receipt of food from a human in a food-giving task.

Domestic dogs have been shown to reciprocate help received from conspecifics in food-giving tasks. However, it is not yet known whether dogs also reciprocate help received from humans. Here, we investigated whether dogs reciprocate the receipt of food from humans. In an experience phase, subjects encountered a helpful human who provided them with food by activating a food dispenser, and an unhelpful human who did not provide them with food. Subjects later had the opportunity to return food to each human type, in a test phase, via the same mechanism. In addition, a free interaction session was conducted in which the subject was free to interact with its owner and with whichever human partner it had encountered on that day. Two studies were carried out, which differed in the complexity of the experience phase and the time lag between the experience phase and test phase. Subjects did not reciprocate the receipt of food in either study. Furthermore, no difference was observed in the duration subjects spent in proximity to, or the latency to approach, the two human partners. Although our results suggest that dogs do not reciprocate help received from humans, they also suggest that the dogs did not recognize the cooperative or uncooperative act of the humans during the experience phase. It is plausible that aspects of the experimental design hindered the emergence of any potential reciprocity. However, it is also possible that dogs are simply not prosocial towards humans in food-giving contexts.