Selective responding to human ostensive communication is an early developing capacity of domestic dogs.
communication
dog
gaze
object-choice task
ostensive
pointing
Journal
Developmental science
ISSN: 1467-7687
Titre abrégé: Dev Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9814574
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2023
07 2023
Historique:
revised:
22
11
2022
received:
23
06
2022
accepted:
13
12
2022
medline:
23
6
2023
pubmed:
23
12
2022
entrez:
22
12
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13361Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Baayen, R. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using. R Cambridge University Press.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.
Ben-Aderet, T., Gallego-Abenza, M., Reby, D., & Mathevon, N. (2017). Dog-directed speech: why do we use it and do dogs pay attention to it? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1846), 20162429. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2429
Bray, E. E., Gruen, M. E., Gnanadesikan, G. E., Horschler, D. J., Levy, K. M., Kennedy, B. S., Hare, B. A., & MacLean, E. L. (2021). Dog cognitive development: a longitudinal study across the first 2 years of life. Animal Cognition, 24(2), 311-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01443-7
Bürkner, P.- C. (2017). Bayesian Regression Models using Stan. R package version, 1(0).
Csibra, G. (2010). Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind & Language, 25(2), 141-168.
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2011). Natural pedagogy as evolutionary adaptation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1149-1157. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0319
Csibra, G., & Volein, Á. (2008). Infants can infer the presence of hidden objects from referential gaze information. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151007x185987
D'Aniello, B., Alterisio, A., Scandurra, A., Petremolo, E., Iommelli, M. R., & Aria, M. (2017). What's the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Animal Cognition, 20(4), 777-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1098-2
Dettori, J. R., & Norvell, D. C. (2020). Kappa and beyond: is there agreement? Global Spine Journal, 10(4), 499-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220911648
Dobson, A. J., & Barnett, A. G. (2018). An introduction to generalized linear models. CRC press.
Dorey, N. R., Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). When do domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, start to understand human pointing? The role of ontogeny in the development of interspecies communication. Animal Behaviour, 79(1), 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.032
Duranton, C., Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2017). Do pet dogs (Canis familiaris) follow ostensive and non-ostensive human gaze to distant space and to objects? Royal Society Open Science, 4(7), 170349. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170349
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage Publications.
Forstmeier, W., & Schielzeth, H. (2011). Cryptic multiple hypotheses testing in linear models: overestimated effect sizes and the winner's curse. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1038-5
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2018). An R companion to applied regression. Sage Publications.
Gácsi, M., Kara, E., Belényi, B., Topál, J., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Animal Cognition, 12(3), 471-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0208-6
Gergely, A., Faragó, T., Galambos, Á., & Topál, J. (2017). Differential effects of speech situations on mothers’ and fathers’ infant-directed and dog-directed speech: An acoustic analysis. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-13883-2
Gwet, K. L. (2008). Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600
Hauser, M. D. (1988). How infant vervet monkeys learn to recognize starling alarm calls: The role of experience. Behaviour, 105(3), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853988X00016
Heintz, C., & Scott-Phillips, T. (2021). Expression unleashed: The evolutionary & cognitive foundations of human communication: VERSION December 2021. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-46.
Kaminski, J., Schulz, L., & Tomasello, M. (2012). How dogs know when communication is intended for them. Developmental Science, 15(2), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01120.x
Kis, A., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Range, F., Huber, L., Miklósi, Á., & Virányi, Z. (2012). Does the A-not-B error in adult pet dogs indicate sensitivity to human communication? Animal Cognition, 15(4), 737-743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0481-2
Leslie, A. M., & Happé, F. (1989). Autism and ostensive communication: The relevance of metarepresentation. Development and psychopathology, 1(3), 205-212.
Lesch, R., Kotrschal, K., Schöberl, I., Beetz, A., Solomon, J., & Fitch, W. (2019). Talking to dogs: Companion animal-directed speech in a stress test. Animals, 9(7), 417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9070417
ManyDogs, Espinosa, J., Bray, E. E., Buchsbaum, D., Byosiere, S.- E., Byrne, M., Freeman, M. S., Gnanadesikan, G. E., Guran, A., Horschler, D. J., Huber, L., Johnston, A. M., MacLean, E. L., Pelgrim, M. H., Santos, L., Silver, Z. A., Stevens, J. R., Völter, C. J., & Zipperling, L. (pre-registered report accepted in principle). ManyDogs 1: A Multi-Lab Replication Study of Dogs' Pointing Comprehension. Animal Behavior and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f86jq
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001
McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. (1989). Generalized linear models. Routledge.
McElreath, R. (2016). Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan Taylor and Francis. CRC Press.
Morrill, K., Hekman, J., Li, X., McClure, J., Logan, B., Goodman, L., Gao, M., Dong, Y., Alonso, M., Carmichael, E., Snyder-Mackler, N., Alonso, J., Noh, H. J., Johnson, J., Koltookian, M., Lieu, C., Megquier, K., Swofford, R., Turner-Maier, J., … Karlsson, E. K. (2022). Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes. Science, 376(6592), eabk0639. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0639
Nishida, T. (1987). Primate societies. University of Chicago Press.
Ohyama, T. (2021). Statistical inference of Gwet's AC1 coefficient for multiple raters and binary outcomes. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 50(15), 3564-3572.
Oliva, J. L., Rault, J.- L., Appleton, B., & Lill, A. (2015). Oxytocin enhances the appropriate use of human social cues by the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) in an object choice task [journal article]. Animal Cognition, 18(3), 767-775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0843-7
Pongrácz, P., Miklósi, Á., Timár-Geng, K., & Csányi, V. (2004). Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(4), 375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.4.375
Pongrácz, P., & Onofer, D. L. (2020). Cats show an unexpected pattern of response to human ostensive cues in a series of A-not-B error tests. Animal Cognition, 23(4), 681-689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01373-4
Pongrácz, P., Szapu, J. S., & Faragó, T. (2019). Cats (Felis silvestris catus) read human gaze for referential information. Intelligence, 74, 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.11.001
Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2011). Development of gaze following abilities in wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16888. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016888
Reid, P. J. (2009). Adapting to the human world: dogs' responsiveness to our social cues. Behavioural Processes, 80(3), 325-333.
Scheider, L., Grassmann, S., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Domestic dogs use contextual information and tone of voice when following a human pointing gesture. PLoS ONE, 6(7), e21676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021676
Schielzeth, H., & Forstmeier, W. (2009). Conclusions beyond support: overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behavioral Ecology, 20(2), 416-420. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn145
Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2015). Nonhuman primate communication, pragmatics, and the origins of language. Current Anthropology, 56(1), 56-80.
Scott-Phillips, T. C. (2015). Meaning in animal and human communication. Animal Cognition, 18(3), 801-805.
Scott-Phillips, T., & Heintz, C. (2022). Animal communication in linguistic perspective. [Pre-print]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vnc5m
Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008). Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18(9), 668-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059
Senju, A., Csibra, G., & Johnson, M. H. (2008). Understanding the referential nature of looking: Infants’ preference for object-directed gaze. Cognition, 108(2), 303-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.009
Soproni, K., Miklósi, Á., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2001). Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 115(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122
Sperber, D. (2000). Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, 117-137.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (vol. 142). Harvard University Press.
Takaoka, A., Maeda, T., Hori, Y., & Fujita, K. (2015). Do dogs follow behavioral cues from an unreliable human? Animal Cognition, 18(2), 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-0816-2
Tauzin, T., Csík, A., Kis, A., Kovács, K., & Topál, J. (2015). The order of ostensive and referential signals affects dogs’ responsiveness when interacting with a human. Animal Cognition, 18(4), 975-979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0857-1
Team, R. C. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
Téglás, E., Gergely, A., Kupán, K., Miklósi, Á., & Topál, J. (2012). Dogs' gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Current Biology, 22(3), 209-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.018
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129
Topál, J., Gergely, G., Erdőhegyi, Á., Csibra, G., & Miklósi, Á. (2009). Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science, 325(5945), 1269-1272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176960
Udell, M. A., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. (2010a). What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs' sensitivity to human actions. Biological Reviews, 85(2), 327-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00104.x
Udell, M. A., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. (2010b). The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Animal Behaviour, 79(3), 717-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.027
Udell, M. A., & Wynne, C. D. (2010). Ontogeny and phylogeny: both are essential to human-sensitive behaviour in the genus Canis. Animal Behaviour, 79(2), e9-e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.033
Wallis, L. J., Range, F., Müller, C. A., Serisier, S., Huber, L., & Virányi, Z. (2015). Training for eye contact modulates gaze following in dogs. Animal Behaviour, 106, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.020
Werhahn, G., Virányi, Z., Barrera, G., Sommese, A., & Range, F. (2016). Wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) differ in following human gaze into distant space but respond similar to their packmates’ gaze. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 130(3), 288. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000036
Watowich, M. M., MacLean, E. L., Hare, B., Call, J., Kaminski, J., Miklósi, Á., & Snyder-Mackler, N. (2020). Age influences domestic dog cognitive performance independent of average breed lifespan. Animal Cognition, 23(4), 795-805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-020-01385-0
Wynne, C. D. L., Udell, M. A. R., & Lord, K. A. (2008). Ontogeny's impacts on human-dog communication. Animal Behaviour, 76(4), e1-e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.03.010
Zaine, I., Domeniconi, C., & Wynne, C. D. (2015). The ontogeny of human point following in dogs: When younger dogs outperform older. Behavioural Processes, 119, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.07.004