Search

This study aimed to investigate the effects of the presence of a domestic dog in the evaluation and tolerance of auditory aversive stimulation. Eighteen undergraduate college students participated. We analysed the latency of escape response from the aversive sounds and evaluation of the session through a semantic differential in three conditions: no distractors, a book of paintings as a distractor, and a dog as a distractor. Latency of escape response was significantly higher in the presence of a dog and participants also evaluated the session more positively, suggesting that dogs can positively affect the perception of an aversive stimulation

Previous research in canids has revealed both group (dog versus wolf) and individual differences in object choice task (OCT) performance. These differences might be explained by variation in the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene, as intranasally administered oxytocin has recently been shown to improve performance on this task by domestic dogs. This study looked at microsatellites at various distances from the OXTR gene to determine whether there was an association between this gene and: i) species (dog/wolf) and ii) good versus bad OCT performers. Ten primer sets were designed to amplify 10 microsatellites that were identified at various distances from the canine OXTR gene. We used 94 (52 males, 42 females) blood samples from shelter dogs, 75 (33 males, 42 females) saliva samples from pet dogs and 12 (6 males, 6 females) captive wolf saliva samples to carry out our analyses. Significant species differences were found in the two markers closest to the OXTR gene, suggesting that this gene may have played an important part in the domestic dogs’ evolution from the wolf. However, no significant, meaningful differences were found in microsatellites between good versus bad OCT performers, which suggests that other factors, such as different training and socialisation experiences, probably impacted task performance

A positive association has been found between owner-rated dog cognition and owner-perceived closeness to their dog, using the Perceptions of Dog Intelligence and Cognitive Skills (PoDIaCS) survey and the Monash Dog Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS). Oxytocin has been positively associated with bonding in mammals and with non-verbal intelligence in humans and could therefore explain this relationship between owner-rated questionnaires. The aims of this study were to ascertain: i) whether a pet dog’s performance on an object choice task (OCT), which objectively measures dogs’ ability to use human non-verbal, social gestures to find a food reward, could be predicted by their owners’ scores on three different surveys: (a) the MDORS, (b) the Pet Attachment Questionnaire (PAQ), which measures levels of anxious and avoidant attachment styles, and (c) a modified version of the PoDIaCS, and ii) if intranasal administration of oxytocin to dogs, known to enhance dogs’ performance on such tasks, would disable the ability of an owner to predict their dogs’ performance. It was hypothesized that higher ratings of owner-reported closeness to their dog, and higher ratings of owner-perceived intelligence of their dog, would positively predict dog OCT performance after saline, but not after oxytocin. Seventy-five pet dogs and their owners were recruited to participate in two OCTs, 5-15 days apart, once after the dog received intranasal oxytocin and once after receiving saline. Owners completed the PoDIaCS and another survey relating to pet ownership before OCT 1, and the MDORS and PAQ before OCT 2. After saline administration, scores on the anxious subscale of the PAQ were a negative predictor of dog OCT performance using pointing cues, while subscale 6 of the PoDIaCS, ‘contagion of human emotions’, positively predicted performance using gazing cues. None of the questionnaire subscales were predictive of performance on the OCT after oxytocin administration. Results suggest that a dog’s ‘natural’ ability to follow human pointing cues and anxious attachment in owners are inversely related, whilst a dog’s ‘natural’ ability to follow human gazing cues is positively related to owner-rated empathic ability of the dog.

Canine Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome (CCD) is a neurodegenerative disease affecting aging dogs. CCD is an underdiagnosed disease that involves at least 14% of geriatric dogs, but apparently less than 2% of diseased dogs are diagnosed. There are several physiopathological similarities between Alzheimer disease (AD) and CCD, developing amyloid-β deposits in brain parenchyma and blood vessels, brain atrophy and neuronal loss. The clinical signs lead to behavioural changes. They are unspecific and could appear as soon as seven years of age, but are more relevant in senior dogs. The abnormal behaviour could be classified following the acronym DISHA: Disorientation in the immediate environment; altered Interactions with humans and other animals; Sleep-wake cycle disturbances; House-soiling; and changes in Activity levels. There is no specific diagnostic test or biomarker to demonstrate the presence of CCD; therefore, it is often assessed by ruling out other diseases that may cause similar behavioural changes. Veterinarians have to be able to make an accurate account of veterinary history asking for abnormal behaviour that could be misreported by the owners. CCD is a neurodegenerative disorder that cannot be cured. It is possible to delay the progression of the clinical signs and improve the quality of life of patients, but like in AD, the progression of the illness will depend on the individual. There are three treatment pathways, which could be used in combination: drug therapy to improve cognition and reduce anxiety, antioxidant diet and nutraceutical supplements to reduce the progression of the illness, and finally, environmental enrichment to maintain brain activity. The aim of this review article is to contribute to the knowledge of the illness, presenting recent advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of the disease

A significant number of homeless people own dogs, with these animals contributing to the well-being of their owners by providing emotional support and in many cases, a reason for living as well as acting as what might be termed a social catalyst improving bonds between their owners. Yet many consider that homeless people should not be allowed, let alone encouraged to keep a dog. They consider that living with a homeless people must have a negative impact on the dog’s health and welfare compared to that of a dog owned by people with a home. Here we sought to determine the health and welfare of dogs owned by homeless people, comparing 50 dogs owned by homeless people with 50 owned by people living in a home. In contradistinction to the negative view noted above, we found that dogs owned by homeless people were healthy animals, less likely to be obese, had fewer behaviour issues such as aggression to strangers and separation anxiety when compared to dogs owned by people living in a conventional home. We suggest that these findings should be taken into account when deciding whether a homeless person with a dog should be allowed into a hostel, and indeed the general attitude of the public to homeless people living with a dog by their side on the street