Domesticity and Cognition in Dogs PowerPoint Presentation, PPT - DocSlides

Domesticity and Cognition in Dogs

Dogs can do a lot of high level behavior!Nonsocial learningDemonstrations of learning and problem solving that requires no social cuesSocial learning

Demonstrations of learning and problem solving that require social cues from other dogs or humans

Nonsocial LearningStrong discrimination learningMost often use MTS or DMTSVisual cuesColor of objects: blue vs.

organge

, black vs. white

E.g., Milgram, et al, 1994; Araujo, et al, 2014

Spatial

cues: body position and landmarks

Better at body position (L, R)

Milgram, et al 1999; Ashton and

DeLillo

, 211

Auditory

cues:

Go/no go: Brown and

Slotysik

(1999)

Different sounds

Human vocal signals (

McConnel

, 1999)

Olfactory

cues, particularly nonsocial odor cues

Nonsocial LearningContingency reversal learning:Can learn A B and then B A

Ashton&

DeLillo

, 2011

Object permanence:

Can find hidden object when observe object hidden

Some data ((Gagnon & Dore, 1992, 1994) suggests can find when NOT see the object being hidden

Object learning (

Framl

& Frank, 1985)

Categorizing and inferential learning: Range, et al, 2008

Nonsocial LearningObject manipulation (Topal, et al, 1997)Means-end task

(

Osthaus

et al, 2005)

Quantitative tasks

More vs. less

Some counting

Search order

Spatial navigation:

Cattet

& Etienne, 2004 and solving detour problems (Pongracz, et al, 2001)

Nonsocial counting:Dogs can count?Numerical competence and ability to discriminate more and lessDogs about as good at numerical competence as the great apes!West and Young (2002) from

Pepperberg

(1994)

Dogs shown three problems

1+1 = 2; 1+1=1; 1+1=3 (all in dog biscuits; shown problem then solution)

Dogs gazed longer when the expected solution was wrong

Expectancy violationsTinkelpaugh (1928) taskShow food itemCover it up with a cupSlide to animal

Animal lifts up cup- but tricked: another lesser preferred food is there

Look to see if animal is surprised/upset

Dogs show strong expectancy violation

So do chimps,

corvids

Language learning?Rico:Kaminski, Call & Fisher, 2004Learned 200 nounsChaser:

Pilley

and Reid, 2011

Learned 600 names of objects

Also can deduce new objects; show inference

May be partially do to novelty effects

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_

6479QAJuz8

Social LearningSelectively avoid forbidden food, but grab it when the owner is not lookingBeg 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

Miklosi

&

sporoni

, 2006;

Agnette

et al, 2000; Udell, et al, 2008

Social learningCan do perspective takingChange reaction to forbidden food (Call, et a, 2003; Tomasello, 2008)Change where drop ball depending on position of human

Begging responses change depending on actions of human

Attempt to communicate with humans:

Move objects closer

Indicate location of items

Ask for help with problem

Occurs as early as 8 weeks

Service dogs are better!

Miklosi

, et al, 2003;

Viranyi

, et al, 2006;

Topal

, et al, 2006

Social learningCan model other dogsNot as good as model humansSnout contact provides information (Lupfer-Johnson)

Very good at modeling off of humans

Action matching: Do as I do

Topal

, et al, 2006; Huber, et al, 2009; Range, et al, 20070

Povinelli and Eddy, 1996: Choice of target when beggingDogs trained to beg from a human for food

Offered choice of a

blindfolded human

or

a human that could see them

(for control, also a human with the blindfold over the mouth, nose, around the neck)

Dogs preferred the human with no blindfold over the eyes; no difference between this an person with blindfold who could see

Only chimps, bonobos also do this

Povllelli

, et al, 1990;

Heyes

, 1993

Dogs, like chimps, use human behavior for cues to food location

Humans pointed, turned head or just turned eyes to look at location of hidden food

Dogs could use all three cues to determine where the food was located

Held, et al., 2001; Ashton and Cooper (in Cooper et al, 2003)Dogs can use errors as clues, as well

Dogs blindfolded

and not blindfolded: find food in room after model demonstrates

Watched/not watched model get a hidden food

Those who could watch did better

Had other dogs watch the blindfolded dogs find the food

Blindfolded dogs made many mistakes before found food

Those dogs who watched avoided the areas that the food was not and went more directly to the final food location, avoiding the errors

Cooper, et al 2001Dogs able to choose which observer they preferred: Three locations that food was hidden

One human was in room (with the dog) when the food was hidden; human could see the location of the hidden food (watched the “hider”); dog could not

Second person entered room after food was hidden

Both humans sat in chairs, dog was to choose who to approach to get the food for them

Overwhelmingly chose the individual who was in the room at the time the food was hidden

Dogs understand fairness(Range, et al., 2009)Dogs taught to shake hands to get a reward

Two dogs at a time

Dogs had to shake hands with experimenter

One dog is rewarded, the other is not

Dogs who got rewarded kept responding to cue

Dogs who did NOT get rewarded

Hesitated longer before responding

Quit responding

Two studies for today: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

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 desireDogs are selected to both

Attend to humans

Choose most food

Method54 dog-owner dyadsMostly pure breedsSome mixed breedsThree 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

Results1:1 condition:82% chose owners choice6% chose opposite plate12% showed no preference

Bigger/Smaller owners’ preference

32% chose larger

32% chose owner’s choice

36% chose both equally often

How did the deaf dogs in my study differ?

75% chose the owner’s choice rather than the bigger choice

Other EffectsGender differences: no differencesAge effects: older dogs were likely to be more accurateTraining 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

Lupfer-Johnson and Ross studyDogs, along with just a few other species, are able to learn from conspecificsHuman childrenRed winged blackbirdsDwarf (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

Method22 dogs in boarding facility (doggie day care)1 dog served as demonstrator for 12 total demonstrator-observer pairsAll 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.

ResultsOne way ANOVA on the dataDogs were significantly more likely to eat the flavor the demonstrator dog ate; just like our deaf dogs!Dogs with basil demonstrators ate significantly more basil food than those with thyme demonstrators (apparently thyme is icky)

Sensitivity to human social cuesDogs show sensitivity to human social stimuli when they reliably alter behavior to obtain reinforcement in the presence of stimuli that depends on instruction or mediation by a human companionTheory 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”.

DO dogs have a theory of mind?

Let’s review the 2 theories regarding dog behavior and cognition

Domestication of DogsInvolves both natural and artificial selectionNatural selection:Develops individuals who more likely tolerant of humans

Remain closer in, live with humans

Several sub categories

Tame domesticated

Genetically domesticated but wild (feral)

Wild type but tame

Interestingly, 75% of world’s dogs are feral

100,000 year history of domestication

As humans entered more agricultural lifestyle, wolves scavenged for food from them

Led to changes in wolf morphology and behavior

Reduced fear and aggression in presence of humans = exploitation of more food sources

Later, humans began to selectively breed dogs

Domestication Hypothesis (Hare, et al):Domestication = sufficient cause of canid’s sensitivity to human social behavior

Human and dog convergent evolution of advanced social cognition in response to similar social selection pressures

Hare : number of comparisons of wolves versus dogs and domesticated foxes:

Dogs better at following human gestures; Wolves only good at point/gaze

Socialized wolves improve at point/gaze task

Experimentally domesticated foxes performed like dogs

As get older, wolves prefer to be with another wolf rather than a human

Most dogs are the opposite: preference for human interaction

Arguments against Domestication HypothesisDomestic dogs have smaller brains than wolvesSocialized wolves can learn human signals as well as dogs

Improbable that dogs have innate ability to exploit behavior of humans

Not conspecifics

Different morphology and behavior

E.g., the “hat” problem: owner in hat vs. owner without hat.

Ontogeny plays crucial role in development of effective conspecific social interactions in

canids

(and many other species)

Two stage hypothesisSensitivity of canid to human social cues depends on TWO types of ontogenic experiences

Interactions with humans during sensitivity developmental period leading to

acceptance of humans as social companions

Learning across the lifespan:

not restricted to one particular phase of development

Learn to use location and movement of human body parts to locate sought-after objects

Canids

not so much changes qualitatively, as domestication has changed quantitative rate of certain behavior

PredictionsBoth wild and domestic canids have phylogenetic prerequisites to respond to human social signals and have mutually beneficial interactions with humans

Biological Preparedness and

B

iological Boundaries of learning

Dogs are “prepared” to learn certain (human) cues and emotions

But: this preparedness to respond requires experience to elicit and shape it

Will become socialized to whatever it is around:

Other dogs

Sheep or cattle

humans

So…..based on all you have learned this semesterWhich hypothesis do YOU think is better supported?Why are these issues important forThe area of cognitive sciencePsychology in general

Dog training