Dogs’ ability to follow temporarily invisible moving objects: the ability to track and expect is shaped by experience

Animal Cognition - 2023
Miina Lõoke1, Orsolya Kanizsár1, Cécile Guerineau1, Paolo Mongillo1, Lieta Marinelli1
1Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Viale dell’Università 16, 35020 Legnaro, PD, Italy

Tóm tắt

Abstract

Visually tracking a moving object, even if it becomes temporarily invisible, is an important skill for animals living in complex environments. However, this ability has not been widely explored in dogs. To address this gap of knowledge and understand how experience contributes to such ability, we conducted two experiments using a violation of expectation paradigm. Dogs were shown an animation of a ball moving horizontally across a screen, passing behind an occluder, and reappearing with a timing that was faster, slower or congruent with its initial speed. In the first experiment, dogs (N = 15) were exposed to the incongruent conditions without prior experience; while in the second experiment, dogs (N = 37) were preliminarily exposed to the congruent stimulus. Dogs of the first experiment did not exhibit a surprise effect, as measured by latency to look away from the expected stimulus presentation area, in response to the incongruent conditions, suggesting they had not formed an expectation about the timing of reappearance. However, their latency to orient towards the reappearing ball depended on the condition, suggesting they were able, to some extent, to visually keep track of the stimulus’ trajectory. Dogs of the second experiment were surprised when the ball stayed behind the occluder longer than expected, but showed no difference in latency to orient across conditions. This suggests they had overcome the visual tracking mechanism and had formed expectations about the timing of reappearance. In conclusion, dogs seem to use a low-level mechanism to keep visual track of a temporarily disappearing moving object, but experience is required to make expectation about its trajectory.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-006-0025-8

Bastos APM, Taylor AH (2019) Kea (Nestor notabilis) represent object trajectory and identity. Sci Rep 9:19759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56380-4

Bensky MK, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Study Behav 45:209–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407186-5.00005-7

Chiandetti C, Vallortigara G (2011) Intuitive physical reasoning about occluded objects by inexperienced chicks. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 278:2621–2627. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.2381

Churchland MM, Chou I-H, Lisberger SG (2003) Evidence for object permanence in the smooth-pursuit eye movements of monkeys. J Neurophysiol 90:2205–2218. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.01056.2002

Cliff JH, Jackson SMK, McEwan JS, Bizo LA (2019) Weber’s law and the scalar property of timing: a test of canine timing. Animals 9:801. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100801

Delanoeije J, Gerencsér L, Miklósi Á (2020) Do dogs mind the dots ? Investigating domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) preferential looking at human-shaped point-light figures. Ethology. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13016

Eatherington CJ, Marinelli L, Lõoke M et al (2019) Local dot motion, not global configuration, determines dogs’ preference for point-light displays. Animals 9:661. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090661

Eatherington CJ, Mongillo P, Lõoke M, Marinelli L (2021) Dogs fail to recognize a human pointing gesture in two-dimensional depictions of motion cues. Behav Processes 189:104425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104425

Fontanari L, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2011) Object individuation in 3-day-old chicks: use of property and spatiotemporal information. Dev Sci 14:1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2011.01074.X

Freire R, Nicol CJ (1999) Effect of experience of occlusion events on the domestic chick’s strategy for locating a concealed imprinting object. Anim Behav 58:593–599. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1162

Heinrich T, Lappe A, Hanke FD (2022) Beyond the classic sensory systems: characteristics of the sense of time of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) assessed in a visual temporal discrimination and a bisection task. Anat Rec 305:704–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/AR.24715

Kanizsár O, Mongillo P, Battaglini L et al (2017) Dogs are not better than humans at detecting coherent motion. Sci Rep 7:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-11864-z

Kanizsár O, Mongillo P, Battaglini L et al (2018) The effect of experience and of dots’ density and duration on the detection of coherent motion in dogs. Anim Cogn 21:651–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1200-4

Kochukhova O, Gredebäck G (2007) Learning about occlusion: initial assumptions and rapid adjustments. Cognition 105:26–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.08.005

Kovács K, Kis A, Kanizsár O et al (2016) The effect of oxytocin on biological motion perception in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 19:513–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0951-4

Land F (1992) Visual tracking and pursuit: humans and arthropods compared. J Insect Physiol 38:939–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1910(92)90002-U

Land M (2019) Eye movements in man and other animals. Vis Res 162:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2019.06.004

Lõoke M, Kanizsar O, Battaglini L et al (2020) Are dogs good at spotting movement? Velocity thresholds of motion detection in Canis familiaris. Curr Zool 66:699–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zoaa044/5896524

Meicler M, Gratch G (1980) Do 5-month-olds show object conception in piaget’s sense? Infant Behav Dev 3:265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(80)80032-4

Miller PE, Murphy CJ (1995) Vision in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 207:1623–1634

Mongillo P, Eatherington C, Lõoke M, Marinelli L (2021) I know a dog when I see one: dogs (Canis familiaris) recognize dogs from videos. Anim Cogn 1:3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01470-y

Mrotek LA, Soechting JF (2007) Predicting curvilinear target motion through an occlusion. Exp Brain Res 178:99–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0717-y

Müller CA, Mayer C, Dörrenberg S et al (2011) Female but not male dogs respond to a size constancy violation. Biol Lett 7:689–691. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSBL.2011.0287

Nelson KE (1971) Accommodation of visual tracking patterns in human infants to object movement patterns. J Exp Child Psychol 12:182–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(71)90003-8

Pattison KF, Miller HC, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall T (2010) The case of the disappearing bone: dogs’ understanding of the physical properties of objects. Behav Process 85:278–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.06.016

Pattison KF, Laude JR, Zentall TR (2013) The case of the magic bones: dogs’ memory of the physical properties of objects. Learn Motiv 44:252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LMOT.2013.04.003

Regolin L, Vallortigara G, Zanforlin M (1995) Object and spatial representations in detour problems by chicks. Anim Behav 49:195–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80167-7

Regolin L, Garzotto B, Rugani R et al (2005) Working memory in the chick: parallel and lateralized mechanisms for encoding of object- and position-specific information. Behav Brain Res 157:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2004.06.012

Scholl BJ, Pylyshyn ZW (1999) Tracking multiple items through occlusion: clues to visual objecthood. Cogn Psychol 290:259–290

Vallortigara G, Regolin L, Rigoni M, Zanforlin M (1998) Delayed search for a concealed imprinted object in the domestic chick. Anim Cogn 1:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050003

Vanmarle K, Wynn K (2006) Six-month-old infants use analog magnitudes to represent duration. Dev Sci 9:F41–F49. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2006.00508.X

Völter CJ, Huber L (2021a) Dogs’ looking times and pupil dilation response reveal expectations about contact causality. Biol Lett 17:20210465. https://doi.org/10.1098/RSBL.2021.0465

Völter CJ, Huber L (2021b) Expectancy violations about physical properties of animated objects in dogs. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3pr9z

Völter CJ, Karl S, Huber L (2020) Dogs accurately track a moving object on a screen and anticipate its destination. Sci Rep 10:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72506-5

Von Hofsten C, Feng Q, Spelke ES (2000) Object representation and predictive action in infancy. Dev Sci 3:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00113

West RE, Young RJ (2002) Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Anim Cogn 5:183–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-002-0140-0

Winters S, Dubuc C, Higham JP (2015) Perspectives: the looking time experimental paradigm in studies of animal visual perception and cognition. Ethology 121:625–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12378

Zentall TR, Pattison KF (2016) Now you see it, now you don’t: object permanence in dogs. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 25:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416664861

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Animal Cognition

Thông tin tác giả