Animal Cognition

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 339–347 | Cite as

Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs

  • Friederike RangeEmail author
  • Ulrike Aust
  • Michael Steurer
  • Ludwig Huber
Original Paper


One of the fundamental issues in the study of animal cognition concerns categorization. Although domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are on the brink to become one of the model animals in animal psychology, their categorization abilities are unknown. This is probably largely due to the absence of an adequate method for testing dogs’ ability to discriminate between large sets of pictures in the absence of human cueing. Here we present a computer-automated touch-screen testing procedure, which enabled us to test visual discrimination in dogs while social cueing was ruled out. Using a simultaneous discrimination procedure, we first trained dogs (N = 4) to differentiate between a set of dog pictures (N = 40) and an equally large set of landscape pictures. All subjects learned to discriminate between the two sets and showed successful transfer to novel pictures. Interestingly, presentation of pictures providing contradictive information (novel dog pictures mounted on familiar landscape pictures) did not disrupt performance, which suggests that the dogs made use of a category-based response rule with classification being coupled to category-relevant features (of the dog) rather than to item-specific features (of the background). We conclude that dogs are able to classify photographs of natural stimuli by means of a perceptual response rule using a newly established touch-screen procedure.


Visual categorization Domestic dogs Touch-screen procedure Discrimination 



This work has received research funding from the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme under contract number: NEST 012929. We thank especially Karin Bayer and Zsófia Virányi for helping with the experiments, the dog owners for participating and three anonymous reviewers for comments. The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

Supplementary material

10071_2007_123_MOESM1_ESM.doc (500 kb)
Supplementary Information (DOC 499 kb)


  1. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguirre G (1978) Retinal degeneration in the dog: Rod dysplasia. Exp Eye Res 26:233–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arey LB, Gore M (1942) The numerical relation-ships between the ganglion cells of the retina and the fibres in the optic nerve of the dog. J Comp Neurol 77:609–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aust U, Huber L (2001) The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people- vs. nonpeople images by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 29:107–119Google Scholar
  5. Aust U, Huber L (2002) Target-defining features in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 30:165–176PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Learn Behav 3:213–224Google Scholar
  7. Aust U, Huber L (2006) Picture-object recognition in pigeons: eidence of representational insight in a visual categorization task using a Complementary Information Procedure. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 32:190–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol 120:38–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coile DC, Pollitz CH, Smith JC (1989) Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiol Behav 45:1087–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook RG (2001) Avian visual cognition. On-line:
  11. Cook RG, Wright AA, Kendrick DF (1990) Visual categorization by pigeons. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn SM, Mumford DB (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol 8. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 187–214Google Scholar
  12. D’Amato MR, Van Sant P (1988) The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 14:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delorme A, Richard G, Fabre-Thorpe M (2000) Ultra-rapid categorisation of natural scenes does not rely on colour cues: a study in monkeys and humans. Vision Res 40:2187–2200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagot J (2000) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press Ltd, East SussexGoogle Scholar
  15. Frank H (1980) Evolution of canine information processing under conditions of natural and artifical selection. Z Tierpsychol 59:389–399Google Scholar
  16. Greene S (1983) Feature memorization in pigeon concept formation. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior, vol 4. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 209–229Google Scholar
  17. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598):1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heffner H (1975) Perception of biologically meaningful sounds by dogs. J Acoust Soc Am 58:S124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of categorization. In: Edelman GM, Gall WE, Cowan WM (eds) Signal and sense. Local and global order in perceptual maps. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Herrnstein RJ, De Villiers PA (1980) Fish as a natural category for people and pigeons. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 14. Academic, NY, pp 59–95Google Scholar
  22. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 2:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber L (1999) Generic perception: open-ended categorization of natural classes. Cah Psychol Cogn—Curr Psychol Cogn 18:845–888Google Scholar
  25. Huber L (2001) Visual categorization in pigeons. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. On-line:
  26. Huber L, Aust U (2006) A modified feature theory as an account of pigeon visual categorization. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 325–342Google Scholar
  27. Huber L, Troje NF, Loidolt M, Aust U, Grass D (2000) Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 53B(4):341–357Google Scholar
  28. Huber L, Apfalter W, Steurer M, Prossinger H (2005) A new learning paradigm elicits fast visual discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 31:237–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304(5677):1682–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kubinyi E, Topal J, Miklosi A, Csanyi V (2003) Dogs (Canis familiaris) learn from their owners via observation in a manipulation task. J Comp Psychol 117(2):156–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lea SEG (1984) In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace HS (eds) Animall Cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 263–276Google Scholar
  32. Matsuzawa T (2001) Primate origins of human cognition and behavior. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  33. McIlvane WJ, Serna RW, Dube WV, Stromer R (2000) Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In: Leslie JC, Blackman D (eds) Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior. Context Press, Reno, pp 85–110Google Scholar
  34. Miklosi A, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miklosi A, Kubinyi E, Topal J, Gacsi M, Viranyi Z, Csanyi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miklosi A, Topal J, Csanyi V (2004) Comparative social cognition: what can dogs teach us? Anim Behav 67:995–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Monen J, Brenner E, Reynaerts J (1998) What does a pigeon see in a Picasso? J Exp Anal Behav 69:223–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neitz J, Geist T, Jacobs G (1989) Color vision in the dog. Vis Neurosci 3:119–125PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Odom JV, Bromberg NM, Dawson WW (1983) Canine visual acuity: retinal and cortical field potentials evoked by pattern stimulation. Am J Physiol 245:R637–R641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Peichl L (1991) Catecholaminergic amacrine cells in the dog and wolf retina. Vis Neurosci 7:575–587PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pfungst O (1907) Das Pferd des Herrn von Osten (Der Kluge Hans): Ein Beitrag zur experimentellen Tier- und Menschenpsychologie. Johann Ambrosius Barth, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  42. Pisacreta R, Rilling M (1987) Infrared touch technology as a response detector in animal research. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19:389–396Google Scholar
  43. Pongracz P, Miklosi A, Timar-Geng K, Csanyi V (2003) Preference for copying unambiguous demonstrations in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol, 117(3):337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pongracz P, Miklosi A, Timar-Geng K, Csanyi V (2004) Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. J Comp Psychol 118(4):375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts WA, Mazmanian DS (1988) Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 14:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Svartberg K (2005) A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 91(1–2):103–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Topal J, Miklosi A, Csanyi V, Doka A (1998) Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) strange situation test. J Comp Psychol 112(3):219–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Troje NF, Huber L, Loidolt M, Aust U, Fieder M (1999) Categorical learning in pigeons: te role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli. Vis Res 39:353–366PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wadenstein L (1956) The use of flicker electroretinogra-phy in the human eye: observations on clinical cases. Acta Ophthalmol 34:311–340Google Scholar
  50. Zentall T, Wasserman E (2006) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Range
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ulrike Aust
    • 1
  • Michael Steurer
    • 1
  • Ludwig Huber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Neurobiology and Cognition ResearchUniversity of ViennaWien, ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations