Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 329–338 | Cite as

A dog at the keyboard: using arbitrary signs to communicate requests

  • Alexandre Pongrácz Rossi
  • César AdesEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

As a consequence of domestication, dogs have a special readiness for communication with humans. We here investigate whether a dog might be able to acquire and consistently produce a set of arbitrary signs in her communication with humans, as was demonstrated in “linguistic” individuals of several species. A female mongrel dog was submitted to a training schedule in which, after basic command training and after acquiring the verbal labels of rewarding objects or activities, she learned to ask for such objects or activities by selecting lexigrams and pressing keys on a keyboard. Systematic records taken during spontaneous interaction with one of the experimenters showed that lexigrams were used in an appropriate, intentional way, in accordance with the immediate motivational context. The dog only utilized the keyboard in the experimenter’s presence and gazed to him more frequently after key pressing than before, an indication that lexigram use did have communicative content. Results suggest that dogs may be able to learn a conventional system of signs associated to specific objects and activities, functionally analogous to spontaneous soliciting behaviors and point to the potential fruitfulness of the keyboard/lexigram procedure for studying dog communication and cognition. This is the first report to systematically analyze the learning of arbitrary sign production in dogs.

Keywords

Dog–human communication Arbitrary signs acquisition Keyboard use 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Dorothy Fragazy, Robert Young and Adam Miklósi for their careful reading of the manuscript and for valuable suggestions, Carine Savalli Redígolo for statistical assistance, and Daniel Gravian Gomes Santiago, Aline Borges do Carmo, Camila Razzante, Andreza Lustri, Arine Pellegrino, Paula Hiromi Itikawa, Maria Helena Truksa de Barros Machado for assistance in running sessions, and analyzing and discussing data. Special thanks are due to Daniela Ramos for help and support throughout the study. This study, which was supported by a CNPq grant to César Ades, complies with the current Brazilian laws regarding the use of animals in research.

Supplementary material

S1. Sofia moves towards (unattainable) food placed on the table and then signs “comida” (food). (WMV 529 kb)

S2. Alexandre puts a toy on the table thus eliciting approach from Sofia. Sofia presses the “brinquedo” (toy) key. (WMV 447 kb)

S3 Sofia presses the “passear” (walk) key, while Alexandre is putting on his shoes, looks to the door, walks around and approaches the door again. She then watches Alexandre who is getting the leash from a closet. (WMV 1,484 kb)

S4 Coming back from a walk, Sofia presses “água” (water). (WMV 1,700 kb)

S5 This clip does not belong to the sample of experimental records but is relevant as it shows Sofia’s use of the keyboard with a different person. Carine asks “O que você quer ?” (what do you want ?) and Sofia presses the “água” key (repeating the behavior when water is withdrawn). (MPG 2,019 kb)

S6 Sofia presses the key for “carinho” (petting) and gets close to Alexandre. (WMV 755 kb)

S7 Sofia spontaneously presses the key for “casinha” (crate), at night, time to sleep. She then looks at Alexandre, goind directly into the crate when it is open. (WMV 1,026 kb)

References

  1. Anderson JR, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Gaze alternation during “pointing” by squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus)? Anim Cogn 10:267–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Call J, Brauer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M (2003) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J Comp Psychol 117:257–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gácsi M, GyYri B, Miklósi Á, Virányi Z, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Csányi V (2005) Species specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand raised dog and wolf puppies in social situations with humans. Dev Psychobiol 47:111–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gardner RA, Gardner BT, Cantfort TEV (Org.) (1989) Teaching sign language to chimpanzees. State University of New York, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  6. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs ? Trends Cogn Sci 9:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2:137–159Google Scholar
  8. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Herman LM, Forestell PH (1985) Reporting presence or absence of named objects by a language-trained dolphin. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 9:667–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304(5677):1682–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leavens DA, Hostetter AB, Wesley MJ, Hopkins WD (2004) Tactical use of unimodal and bimodal communication by chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Anim Behav 67:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liebal K, Call J, Tomasello M, Pika S (2004) To move or not to move: How apes adjust to the attentional state of others. Interact Stud 5:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Matsuzawa T (2003), The Ai project: historical and ecological contexts. Anim Cogn 6:199–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Menzel CR (1999) Unprompted recall and reporting of hidden objects by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) after extended delays. J Comp Psychol 113:426–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miklósi APR, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog–human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miklósi A, Kubinyi E, Topal J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi N (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miklósi APR, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Comparative social cognition: what can dogs teach us ? Anim Behav 67:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Molnár C, Pongrácz P, Dóka A, Miklósi A (2006) Can humans discriminate between dogs on the base of the acoustic parameters of barks? Behav Process 73:76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pepperberg IM (2002) IN search of King Solomon’s ring: cognitive and communicative studies of grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Brain Behav Evol 59:54–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pongrácz P, Miklósi A, Dóka A, Csányi V (2003) Successful application of video- projected human images for signalling to dogs. Ethology 109:809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Premack D (1990) Words: what are they, and do animals have them? Cognition 37:197–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rossi A (2001) Adestramento inteligente. 5th edn. CMS, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  24. Rumbaugh DM (1977) Language learning by a chimpanzee: the Lana project. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Savage-Rumbaugh ES (1990) Language acquisition in a nonhuman species: implications for the innateness debate. Dev Psychobiol 23:599–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Savage-Rumbaugh S, Murphy J, Sevcik R, Brakke K, Williams S, Rumbaugh D (1993) Language comprehension in ape and child. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 58 (3–4, Serial No. 233)Google Scholar
  27. Savage-Rumbaugh S, Shanker SG, Taylor TJ (1998) Apes, languages and the human mind. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Savolainen P, Zhang YP, Luo J, Lundeberg J, Leitner T (2002) Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298:1610–1613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner BF (1957) Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Terrace HS, Petitto LA, Sanders RJ, Bever TG (1979) Can an ape create a sentence? Science 206:891–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tomasello M (1999) The human adaptation for culture. Annu Rev Anthropol 28:509–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tomasello M, Call J (1997) Primate cognition. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Tomasello M, Zuberbühler K (2002) Primate vocal and gestural communication. In: Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt G (eds) The cognitive animal: empirical and theoretical perspecitives on animal cognition. MIT, Cambridge, pp. 293–329Google Scholar
  35. Vilá C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, Lundeberg J, Wayne RK (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276:1687–1689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warden CJ, Warner LH (1928) The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with a report on the ability of the noted dog “Fellow” to respond to verbal stimuli. Q Rev Biol 3:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yin S, McCowan B (2004) Barking in dogs: context specificity and individual specification. Anim Behav 68:343–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations