Search

Pet domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are generally considered successful on object choice tasks, reliably following human points to a target. However, defining the specific topography of the point types utilized and assessing the potential for dogs to generalize their responses across similar point types has received little attention. In Experiment 1, we assessed pet dogs’ performance on an object choice task utilizing nine different point types that varied across the dimensions of movement, duration, and distance. These dimensions reliably predicted the performance of pet dogs on this task. In Experiment 2, pet dogs presented with nine different point types in the order of increasing difficulty performed better on more difficult point types than both naive dogs and dogs experiencing the nine points in the order of decreasing difficulty. In Experiment 3, we manipulated the attentional state of the experimenter (as in perspective taking studies) and found that human orientation was not a strong predictor of performance on pointing tasks. The results of this study indicate that dogs do not reliably follow all point types without additional training or experience. Furthermore, dogs appear to continuously learn about the dimensions of human points, adjusting their behavior accordingly, even over the course of experimental testing. These findings bring claims of pet dogs’ spontaneous success on pointing tasks into question. The ability to learn about, and respond flexibly to, human gestures may benefit pet dogs living in human homes more than a spontaneous responsiveness to specific gesture types.

Although considerable progress has been made in understanding the genetic basis of morphologic traits (for example, body size and coat color) in dogs and wolves, the genetic basis of their behavioral divergence is poorly understood. An integrative approach using both behavioral and genetic data is required to understand the molecular underpinnings of the various behavioral characteristics associated with domestication. We analyze a 5-Mb genomic region on chromosome 6 previously found to be under positive selection in domestic dog breeds. Deletion of this region in humans is linked to Williams-Beuren syndrome (WBS), a multisystem congenital disorder characterized by hypersocial behavior. We associate quantitative data on behavioral phenotypes symptomatic of WBS in humans with structural changes in the WBS locus in dogs. We find that hypersociability, a central feature of WBS, is also a core element of domestication that distinguishes dogs from wolves. We provide evidence that structural variants in GTF2I and GTF2IRD1, genes previously implicated in the behavioral phenotype of patients with WBS and contained within the WBS locus, contribute to extreme sociability in dogs. This finding suggests that there are commonalities in the genetic architecture of WBS and canine tameness and that directional selection may have targeted a unique set of linked behavioral genes of large phenotypic effect, allowing for rapid behavioral divergence of dogs and wolves, facilitating coexistence with humans.

Simple Summary: Dogs that press buttons to communicate with people have attracted a lot of attention on social media recently. This paper explores how communicating with dogs has a long history—particularly as entertainment but also as science—and notes several paradoxes in the presentation of modern button-pressing dogs. These include how these animals are presented as spontaneously expressing their thoughts when they need months of training; how they appear to offer direct access to their thoughts, yet their button presses usually make little sense without someone interpreting them; and how a human skill—language—is needed for dogs to express their canine mental states. We conclude that although well intentioned and playful, this approach to communicating with dogs runs the risk of replacing the ways that dogs truly communicate with people, such as barking and whining, with an infantile form of human communication. In recent years, dogs that appear to communicate with people by pressing buttons on soundboards that replay pre-recorded English words have become very popular on social media online. We explore how these dogs belong to a historical tradition that dates back at least to the Middle Ages and peaked in the early twentieth century. Through analyses of short videos, books, and training manuals, we identify several paradoxes inherent in this phenomenon. These include how the dogs appear to provide unmediated access to their thoughts, and yet, their button presses are typically incoherent and require interpretation. They also require months of training to "spontaneously" express themselves. There is also an anthropomorphism and -centrism in claiming that a human skill—language—is required for a dog to express mental states that it already possesses. This approach to communicating with dogs quiets canine forms of expression such as barking, whining, bodily postures, and odors and replaces them with endearing but infantile human voices. We suggest that, while this endeavor may be well intentioned and often playful, it runs the risk of skewing people's perception of dogs towards fur-clad infants rather than adult members of a different species and of making people less attentive to canine nonverbal communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Leash pulling is a commonly reported problem behavior for dog owners, as a result, a variety of leash equipment types are offered to mitigate pulling force. We were particularly interested in prong collars as their inherently aversive design has made their use a subject of debate. Though banned in certain countries and widely available in others, to date, there is no research comparing them to other leash walking equipment. Methods: We compared four types of leash walking equipment: a martingale (flat collar as baseline measure), a front-connection harness, a polymer prong-style collar (Starmark), and a standard metal prong collar. Twenty-three dogs were walked on all four types of equipment for 5-min each. Equipment was attached to a leash which was connected to a battery-powered strain gauge to measure the dog's pulling force. All walks were video recorded for behavior analysis. Results: There were statistically significant differences among the leash equipment types in pulling impulse (Newtons × seconds), (χ2(2) = 30.6, p < 0.001). Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences in impulse between the martingale and the other equipment: harness (Z = −3.69, p < 0.001), Starmark collar (Z = −3.62, p < 0.001) and prong collar (Z = −3.92, p < 0.001). No other differences among equipment types were significant. Fifteen behaviors were examined as welfare indicators but only three: looking at the handler, lip licking, and sniffing occurred across all dogs and all walks. There was a statistically significant difference in frequency of lip licking behavior across the four types of leash-equipment (χ2(2) = 8.17, p = 0.04) and post-hoc analysis showed a difference between the martingale and the harness (Z = −2.65, p = 0.008). While our research did not provide any clear evidence of poorer welfare due to equipment type, we caution the generalizability of these findings and recommend further assessment of these items of leash-walking equipment in real-life scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The use of electronic shock collars ("e-collars") is one of the most controversial topics in dog training. In this study, we compared e-collars to methods relying entirely on food rewards in order to stop dogs running after a lure. We found that dogs receiving shocks from e-collars stopped chasing a lure within two sessions of ten minutes of lure running per session. These dogs also refrained from chasing the lure in three out of four test sessions. Two groups of dogs trained with food reward did not refrain from chasing the lure across five training sessions and failed all four test sessions. Aside from presumably pain-induced yelps in the dogs with e-collars when they received shocks, none of the dogs in any groups showed any signs of stress or distress. E-collars may be an appropriate tool in the hands of expert trainers training behaviors that have important welfare impacts, such as running after cars or other animals. Future studies should investigate the levels of expertise needed to use e-collars effectively, the kinds of behavioral problems for which they are best suited, and the longer-term implications of their use. Controversy surrounds the efficacy and welfare implications of different forms of dog training with several studies asserting that electronic shock collars have negative welfare impacts while not being more effective than non-aversive methods. However, these studies did not specify the schedule and intensity of punishment used or the effectiveness of the training method. In the current study, we attempted to train dogs across six sessions to desist from chasing a fast-moving lure in one of three randomly assigned conditions and then tested for retention and generalization in four further test trials. Group A was trained with e-collars; Group B was trained with non-aversive methods and the lure moving as with Group A; and Group C was trained as for Group B but with the lure initially moving slowly before its speed was progressively increased. All dogs in Group A stopped running towards the lure after one or two sessions, and none chased the lure in the first three tests: 67% of these dogs chased the lure in the final test in a novel arena. None of the dogs in the either Group B or C successfully refrained from chasing the moving lure in training or any test. Video behavior coding indicated few stress-related behaviors across the training groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous reports using stimulus intensity changes to disrupt temporal discrimination have shown shifts in the psychophysical curve for time, while studies using other disruptors have shown a flattening of the curve. The current study investigated the impact of increases and decreases in stimulus intensity on temporal discrimination in pigeons, to determine if a flattening of the curve could be extended to this disruptor. The brightness of the sample to be timed was manipulated under two procedural variations, in which the response alternatives were differentiated by color or location. Results showed that all subjects in the color procedure, and one in the location procedure, showed a flattening of the psychophysical curve when they experienced increased stimulus intensity in descending order. No subjects exposed to an ascending order of stimulus intensities, and none of the other subjects in the location procedure, showed any impact of changed stimulus intensity. Minimal disruption was found when test sessions presented decreased stimulus intensity levels in a second series. These results, together with those using other types of disruptors, add to the evidence of a flattening of the psychophysical curve when temporal discrimination is disrupted. (Contains 3 tables and 4 figures.)

Many studies document the domestic dogs’ responsiveness to human gestures. Reports of success on human guided tasks have led to evolutionary hypotheses that set dogs’ skills apart from other species, including other canids, in terms of their social cognition and comprehension of human communicative stimuli. However, until recently the range of other species tested and the availability of studies using equivalent testing methods between different species and groups have been limited, making it difficult to interpret cross-species comparisons. Here we demonstrate that human-socialized wolves are not only capable of responding to points made with the arm and hand, but are sensitive to a wide range of human gestures when given the opportunity to utilize such gestures in an object-choice task. Claims that domestic dogs are unique in their ability to respond to diverse novel stimuli may be in part due to the absence of data for the same range of gestures in other species. We also provide the first evidence that human-socialized coyotes have the capacity to utilize a human point to locate a target; further demonstrating that domestication is not a prerequisite for canid responsiveness to human actions, and that socialization and life experience are likely more important predictors of success

Simple Summary: Recent research has focused on the welfare implications of differing dog training methodologies, but there is less insight into how dog guardians may train their dogs. The aim of this survey study was to gain insight into what training methods dog guardians use, particularly the use of aversive methods, and where they received their recommendations. While there has been recent attention in the scientific community on the ethical and welfare implications of different dog training methods, less research has investigated what methods and training tools United States dog guardians use, where they obtain information about dog training, and the reasons they give for their choices of method. We conducted two surveys with nearly 800 Arizona State University undergraduate students to gain a more realistic look into how dog guardians in the United States train their dogs and where they are receiving their training information. Only 5% of respondents reported utilizing a trainer when they had concerns regarding their dog's behavior; 60% would ask a friend or family member or seek advice online. Few reported taking their dog to any training classes; 70% reported either training the dog themselves or not implementing any formal training. When asked general questions, most respondents reported using rewards-based methods but, when asked about specific problem behaviors, 57% of respondents noted that they would use auditory or physical corrections. Respondents who trained with rewards-based methods reported that these methods of training were more effective significantly more frequently than those who trained with mixed methods reported that those methods were most effective (Fisher's Exact Test, p < 0.01). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the intimate relationship dogs share with humans in Western society, we know relatively little about the variables that produce and maintain dog social behavior towards humans. One possibility is that human social interaction is itself a reinforcer for dog behavior. As an initial assessment of the variables that might maintain dog social behavior, we compared the relative efficacy of brief human social interaction to a small piece of food as a reinforcer for an arbitrary response (nose touch). We investigated this in three populations of canids: shelter dogs, owned dogs, and hand-reared wolves. Across all three canid populations, brief social interaction was a relatively ineffective reinforcer compared to food for most canids, producing lower responding and longer latencies than food. (Contains 1 table and 13 figures.)

Simple Summary: Most studies on dog food and treat preferences focus on owner reports about the product and how much the dog consumes. The aim of this study was to examine dog behavior and engagement in a home-environment with eight different dental chews. Owners submitted a video of their dogs which was analyzed to investigate any relationship between coded dog behavior and owner survey responses for preference among the chew types. Owner-reported dog preference related more to the video coded behavior than their own preference providing some preliminary guidance on what factors might relate to product preference and purchase and how analysis of in-home behavior may better guide pet product research. American pet owners spend billions of dollars on food and treats so it is important to understand what products they want and what they think their dog would enjoy. This study analyzed video recordings of dogs engaging in dental chews in their home environment and compared the observed appetitive behaviors to owner preference and owner-reported dog preference. Overall, appetitive behavior differed significantly between some dental chews. Owner preference for the chews correlated significantly with dog appetitive behavior, but the effect was small (r (702) = 0.22, p = 0.001), whereas owner-reported dog preference correlated significantly with dog appetitive behavior and showed a moderate effect size (r (702) = 0.43, p = 0.001)—similar in magnitude to findings when parents are asked to report on their children's behavior. By merging objective behavioral observation of owner-recorded videos with their survey responses, we were able to preliminarily parse out what factors owners may use to assess preference and encourage the future use of in-home video recordings to better understand dog and owner engagement and interaction with pet products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]