Do pet dogs (Canis familiaris) follow ostensive and non-ostensive human gaze to distant space and to objects?

Dogs are renowned for being skilful at using human-given communicative cues such as pointing. Results are contradictory, however, when it comes to dogs' following human gaze, probably due to methodological discrepancies. Here we investigated whether dogs follow human gaze to one of two food locations better than into distant space even after comparable pre-training. In Experiments 1 and 2, the gazing direction of dogs was recorded in a gaze-following into distant space and in an object-choice task where no choice was allowed, in order to allow a direct comparison between tasks, varying the ostensive nature of the gazes. We found that dogs only followed repeated ostensive human gaze into distant space, whereas they followed all gaze cues in the object-choice task. Dogs followed human gaze better in the object-choice task than when there was no obvious target to look at. In Experiment 3, dogs were tested in another object-choice task and were allowed to approach a container. Ostensive cues facilitated the dogs' following gaze with gaze as well as their choices: we found that dogs in the ostensive group chose the indicated container at chance level, whereas they avoided this container in the non-ostensive group. We propose that dogs may perceive the object-choice task as a competition over food and may interpret non-ostensive gaze as an intentional cue that indicates the experimenter's interest in the food location she has looked at. Whether ostensive cues simply mitigate the competitive perception of this situation or they alter how dogs interpret communicative gaze needs further investigation. Our findings also show that following gaze with one's gaze and actually choosing one of the two containers in an object-choice task need to be considered as different variables. The present study clarifies a number of questions related to gaze-following in dogs and adds to a growing body of evidence showing that human ostensive cues can strongly modify dog behaviour.

Dog growls express various contextual and affective content for human listeners.

Vocal expressions of emotions follow simple rules to encode the inner state of the caller into acoustic parameters, not just within species, but also in cross-species communication. Humans use these structural rules to attribute emotions to dog vocalizations, especially to barks, which match with their contexts. In contrast, humans were found to be unable to differentiate between playful and threatening growls, probably because single growls' aggression level was assessed based on acoustic size cues. To resolve this contradiction, we played back natural growl bouts from three social contexts (food guarding, threatening and playing) to humans, who had to rate the emotional load and guess the context of the playbacks. Listeners attributed emotions to growls according to their social contexts. Within threatening and playful contexts, bouts with shorter, slower pulsing growls and showing smaller apparent body size were rated to be less aggressive and fearful, but more playful and happy. Participants associated the correct contexts with the growls above chance. Moreover, women and participants experienced with dogs scored higher in this task. Our results indicate that dogs may communicate honestly their size and inner state in a serious contest situation, while manipulatively in more uncertain defensive and playful contexts.

Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: a case study of kennel dogs (Labrador Retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm.

Life experiences and living conditions can influence the problem-solving strategies and the communicative abilities of dogs with humans. The goals of this study were to determine any behavioural differences between Labrador Retrievers living in a kennel and those living in a house as pets and to assess whether kennel dogs show preferences in social behaviours for their caretaker relative to a stranger when they are faced with an unsolvable task. Nine Labrador Retrievers living in a kennel from birth and ten Labrador Retrievers living in a family as pets were tested. The experimental procedure consisted of three "solvable" tasks in which the dogs could easily retrieve food from a container followed by an "unsolvable" task in which the container was hermetically locked. Dogs of both groups spent the same amount of time interacting with the experimental apparatus. Kennel dogs gazed towards people for less time and with higher latency than pet dogs; however, there were no significant preferences in gazing towards the stranger versus the caretaker in both groups. These findings demonstrated that kennel dogs are less prone to use human-directed gazing behaviour when they are faced with an unsolvable problem, taking the humans into account to solve a task less than do the pet dogs.

Are dogs sensitive to the human's visual perspective and signs of attention when using a keyboard with arbitrary symbols to communicate?

This study investigated whether dogs take into account the human's direction of attention and visual field when they communicate by means of a keyboard with lexigrams. In order to test this, two dogs, Sofia and Laila, were given the choice between two keyboards, one visible and the other one non-visible from the experimenter's perspective. In one experiment, different barriers were positioned in such way so as to block the experimenter's visibility to one of the keyboards, and, in another experiment we manipulated human's signs of attention, like body orientation and visibility of the eyes. Sofia and Laila consistently preferred to use the keyboard that was in the human's visual field. Laila's choice was also influenced by the human's body orientation. Results suggested that the subjects are sensitive to the human's visual access to the keyboard when they use it to ask for food.(AU)

Este estudo investigou se cães levam em conta a direção da atenção e o campo visual do ser humano quando se comunicam por meio de um teclado com lexigramas. Para tanto, duas cadelas, Sofia e Laila, foram submetidas a uma situação em que podiam escolher entre dois teclados, um deles visível e outro não-visível sob a perspectiva do experimentador. Em um experimento, diferentes barreiras foram posicionadas de tal forma a bloquear a visibilidade do experimentador a um dos teclados, e, em outro, experimento manipulamos os sinais de atenção do ser humano, como orientação corporal e visibilidade dos olhos. Sofia e Laila preferiram consistentemente usar o teclado que estava dentro do campo visual do ser humano. A escolha de Laila também foi influenciada pela orientação corporal do ser humano. Os resultados sugerem que as duas são sensíveis ao acesso visual do ser humano ao teclado quando elas o usam para pedir comida.(AU)

Are dogs sensitive to the human's visual perspective and signs of attention when using a keyboard with arbitrary symbols to communicate?

This study investigated whether dogs take into account the human's direction of attention and visual field when they communicate by means of a keyboard with lexigrams. In order to test this, two dogs, Sofia and Laila, were given the choice between two keyboards, one visible and the other one non-visible from the experimenter's perspective. In one experiment, different barriers were positioned in such way so as to block the experimenter's visibility to one of the keyboards, and, in another experiment we manipulated human's signs of attention, like body orientation and visibility of the eyes. Sofia and Laila consistently preferred to use the keyboard that was in the human's visual field. Laila's choice was also influenced by the human's body orientation. Results suggested that the subjects are sensitive to the human's visual access to the keyboard when they use it to ask for food.

Este estudo investigou se cães levam em conta a direção da atenção e o campo visual do ser humano quando se comunicam por meio de um teclado com lexigramas. Para tanto, duas cadelas, Sofia e Laila, foram submetidas a uma situação em que podiam escolher entre dois teclados, um deles visível e outro não-visível sob a perspectiva do experimentador. Em um experimento, diferentes barreiras foram posicionadas de tal forma a bloquear a visibilidade do experimentador a um dos teclados, e, em outro, experimento manipulamos os sinais de atenção do ser humano, como orientação corporal e visibilidade dos olhos. Sofia e Laila preferiram consistentemente usar o teclado que estava dentro do campo visual do ser humano. A escolha de Laila também foi influenciada pela orientação corporal do ser humano. Os resultados sugerem que as duas são sensíveis ao acesso visual do ser humano ao teclado quando elas o usam para pedir comida.