Animal Cognition

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 497–505 | Cite as

Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle

  • Shannon M. A. Kundey
  • Andres De Los Reyes
  • Chelsea Taglang
  • Ayelet Baruch
  • Rebecca German
Original Paper


Organisms must often make predictions about the trajectories of moving objects. However, often these objects become hidden. To later locate such objects, the organism must maintain a representation of the object in memory and generate an expectation about where it will later appear. We explored adult dogs’ knowledge and use of the solidity principle (that one solid object cannot pass through another solid object) by evaluating search behavior. Subjects watched as a treat rolled down an inclined tube into a box. The box either did or did not contain a solid wall dividing it in half. To find the treat, subjects had to modify their search behavior based on the presence or absence of the wall, which either did or did not block the treat’s trajectory. Dogs correctly searched the near location when the barrier was present and the far location when the barrier was absent. They displayed this behavior from the first trial, as well as performed correctly when trial types were intermingled. These results suggest that dogs direct their searches in accordance with the solidity principle.


Animal cognition Solidity Dog Animal Object knowledge 



Shannon M. A. Kundey, Chelsea Taglang, Ayelet Baruch, and Rebecca German, Department of Psychology, Hood College; Andres De Los Reyes, Comprehensive Assessment and Intervention Program, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland at College Park. We would like to thank Jessica Arbuthnot, Rebecca Allen, Ariel Coshun, Erica Royer, Sherry McClurkin, Sabrina Molina, and Robin Reutten for their assistance in data collection and participant recruitment for this study.

Supplementary material

(MOV 1,230 kb)

(MOV 1,114 kb)


  1. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food locations that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baillargeon R (1995) Physical reasoning in infancy. In: Gazzaniga M (ed) The cognitive neurosciences. MIT, Cambridge, pp 181–204Google Scholar
  3. Baillargeon R, DeVos J (1991) Object permanence in young infants: further evidence. Child Dev 62:1227–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berthier N, Deblois S, Poirier CR, Novak MA, Clifton RK (2000) Where’s the ball? Two and three year olds reason about unseen events. Dev Psychol 26:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogartz R, Shinskey J, Schilling T (2000) Object permanence in five-and-a half-month-old infants? Infancy 1:403–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown A (1990) Domain-specific principles affecting learning and transfer in children. Cogn Sci 14:107–133Google Scholar
  7. Butler S, Berthier N, Clifton R (2002) Two-year-olds’ search strategies and visual tracking in a hidden displacement task. Dev Psychol 38:581–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cacchione T, Call J, Zingg R (2009) Gravity and solidity in four great ape species (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus): vertical and horizontal variations of the table task. J Comp Psychol 123:168–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Collier-Baker E, Davis J, Suddendorf T (2004) Do dogs (Canis familiaris) understand invisible displacement? J Comp Psychol 118:421–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper JJ, Ashton C, Bishop S, West R, Mills DS, Young RJ (2003) Clever hounds: social cognition in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 81:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coppinger RP, Coppinger L (2001) Dogs: a new understanding of canine origin, behavior, and evolution. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. Deppe A, Wright P, Szelistowski W (2009) Object permanence in lemurs. Anim Cogn 12:381–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond A (1990) Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural basis of the inhibitory control of reaching. In: Diamond A (ed) The development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 637–676Google Scholar
  14. Diamond A (1991) Neuropsychological insights into the meaning of object concept development. In: Carey S, Gelman R (eds) The epigenesis of mind: essays on biology and cognition. Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 67–110Google Scholar
  15. Diamond A (1993) Neuropsychological insights into the meaning of object concept development. In: Johnson MH (ed) Brain development and cognition: a reader. Blackwell, Malden, pp 208–247Google Scholar
  16. Doré FY, Dumas C (1987) Psychology of animal cognition: Piagetian studies. Psychol Bull 102:219–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fiset S, Doré F (2006) Duration of cats’ (Felis catus) working memory for disappearing objects. Anim Cogn 9:62–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiset S, LeBlanc V (2007) Invisible displacement understanding in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): the role of visual cues in search behavior. Anim Cogn 10:211–224Google Scholar
  19. Fiset S, Beaulieu C, Landry F (2003) Duration of dogs’ (Canis familiaris) working memory in search for disappearing objects. Anim Cogn 6:1–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fiset S, Landry F, Ouellette M (2006) Egocentric search for disappearing objects in domestic dogs: evidence for a geometric hypothesis of direction. Anim Cogn 9:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fiset S, Beaulieu C, LeBlanc V, Dubé L (2007) Spatial memory of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) for hidden objects in a detour task. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 33:497–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Funk M (1996) Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps). Anim Learn Behav 24:375–383Google Scholar
  23. Gagnon S, Doré FY (1992) Search behavior in various breeds of adult dogs (Canis familiaris): object permanence and olfactory cues. J Comp Psychol 106:58–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gagnon S, Doré FY (1993) Search behavior of dogs (Canis familiaris) in invisible displacement problems. Anim Learn Behav 21:246–254Google Scholar
  25. Gómez J (2005) Species comparative studies and cognitive development. Trends Cogn Sci 9:118–125Google Scholar
  26. Goulet S, Doré F, Rousseau R (1994) Object permanence and working memory in cats (Felis catus). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 20:347–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2:137–159Google Scholar
  28. Hauser MD (2001) Searching for food in the wild: a nonhuman primate’s expectations about invisible displacement. Dev Sci 4:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hauser MD, MacNeilage P, Ware M (1996) Numerical representations in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:1514–1517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hauser MD, Williams T, Kralik JD, Moskovitz D (2001) What guides a search for food that has disappeared? Experiments on cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 115:140–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Hihara S, Obayashi S, Tanaka M, Iriki A (2003) Rapid learning of sequential tool use by macaque monkeys. Phys Behav 78:427–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hood BM, Hauser MD, Anderson L, Santos L (1999) Gravity biases in a nonhuman primate? Dev Sci 2:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leslie AM (1994) ToMM, ToBy, and agency: core architecture and domain specificity. In: Hirschfield LA, Gelman SA (eds) Mapping the mind: domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Mendes N, Huber L (2004) Object permanence in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). J Comp Psychol 118:103–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miklósi Á (2007) Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller HC, Gipson CD, Vaughan A, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall T (2009a) Object permanence in dogs: invisible displacement in a rotation task. Psychon Bull Rev 16:150–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller HC, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall T (2009b) What do dogs know about hidden objects? Behav Process 81:439–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Munakata Y (2001) Graded representations in behavioral dissociations. Trend Cogn Sci 5:309–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Munakata Y, McClelland JL, Johnson MH, Siegler RS (1997) Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive processing account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychol Rev 104:686–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Natale F, Antinucci F, Spinozzi G, Poti P (1986) Stage 6 object concept in nonhuman primate cognition: a comparison between gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) and Japanese macaque (Macaca fuscata). J Comp Psychol 100:335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osthaus B, Slater A, Lea SEG (2003) Can dogs defy gravity? A comparison with the human infant and a non-human primate. Dev Sci 6:249–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Osthaus B, Lea SEG, Slater AM (2005) Dogs (Canis lupis familiaris) fail to show understanding of means end connections in a string pulling task. Anim Cogn 8:37–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Pepperberg I, Kozak F (1986) Object permanence in the African Grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Learn Behav 14:322–330Google Scholar
  45. Pepperberg I, Willner M, Gravitz L (1997) Development of Piagetian object permanence in grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus). J Comp Psychol 111:63–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Pepperburg IM, Funk FA (1990) Object permanence in four species of psittacine birds: an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus), an Illiger mini macaq (Ara maracana), a parakeet (Melopsittacus undulates), and a cockatiel (Nymphicus hollandicus). Anim Learn Behav 14:322–330Google Scholar
  47. Piaget J (1952) The origins of intelligence in children. International University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pollock B, Prior H, Güntürkün O (2000) Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica). J Comp Psychol 114:148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Santos LR (2004) ‘Core knowledges’: A dissociation between spatiotemporal knowledge and contact-mechanics in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 7:167–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Santos LR, Hauser MD (2002) Monkey see versus monkey do?: dissociations between looking and action in a non-human primate. Dev Sci 5:F1–F7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos LR, Mahajan N, Barnes JL (2005) How prosimian primates represent tools: experiments with two lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and Lemur catta). J Comp Psychol 119:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos LR, Seelig D, Hauser MD (2006) Cotton-top tamarins’ (Saguinus oedipus) expectations about occluded objects: a dissociation between looking and reaching tasks. Infancy 9:147–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith L, Thelen E (2003) Development as a dynamic system. Trend Cogn Sci 7:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs. J Comp Psychol 115:122–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psychol 116:27–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Spelke ES (1994) Initial knowledge: six suggestions. Cognition 50:431–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Spelke ES, Breinlinger K, Macomber J, Jacobson K (1992) Origins of knowledge. Psychol Rev 99:605–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Topál J, Byrne R, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2006) Reproducing human actions and action sequences: “Do as I do!” in a dog. Anim Cogn 9:355–367CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Triana E, Pasnak R (1981) Object permanence in cats and dogs. Anim Learn Behav 9:135–139Google Scholar
  61. Uller C, Hauser J, Carey S (2001) Spontaneous representation of number in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 115:248–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Watson JS, Gergely G, Topál J, Gácsi M, Sárközi ZS, Csányi V (2001) Distinguishing logic versus association in the solution of an invisible displacement task by children and dogs: using negation of disjunction. J Comp Psychol 115:219–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Whitt E, Douglas M, Osthaus B, Hocking I (2009) Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 12:739–743CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Zucca P, Milos N, Vallortigara G (2007) Piagetian object permanence and its development in Eurasian Jays (Garrulus glandarius). Anim Cogn 10:243–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shannon M. A. Kundey
    • 1
  • Andres De Los Reyes
    • 2
  • Chelsea Taglang
    • 1
  • Ayelet Baruch
    • 1
  • Rebecca German
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHood CollegeFrederickUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Maryland at College ParkCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations