Advertisement

Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 15–31 | Cite as

Context specificity of inhibitory control in dogs

  • Emily E. BrayEmail author
  • Evan L. MacLean
  • Brian A. Hare
Original Paper

Abstract

Across three experiments, we explored whether a dog’s capacity for inhibitory control is stable or variable across decision-making contexts. In the social task, dogs were first exposed to the reputations of a stingy experimenter that never shared food and a generous experimenter who always shared food. In subsequent test trials, dogs were required to avoid approaching the stingy experimenter when this individual offered (but withheld) a higher-value reward than the generous experimenter did. In the A-not-B task, dogs were required to inhibit searching for food in a previously rewarded location after witnessing the food being moved from this location to a novel hiding place. In the cylinder task, dogs were required to resist approaching visible food directly (because it was behind a transparent barrier), in favor of a detour reaching response. Overall, dogs exhibited inhibitory control in all three tasks. However, individual scores were not correlated between tasks, suggesting that context has a large effect on dogs’ behavior. This result mirrors studies of humans, which have highlighted intra-individual variation in inhibitory control as a function of the decision-making context. Lastly, we observed a correlation between a subject’s age and performance on the cylinder task, corroborating previous observations of age-related decline in dogs’ executive function.

Keywords

Domestic dogs Inhibitory control Canine Cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank S. Mitroff and A. Joh for helpful discussion, as well as J. Serpell, D. Cheney, P. Costanzo, M. Golonka, M. Ritchey, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on drafts. We also thank T. Jones, A. Madison, Z. Best, and J. Clift for their help with coding, in addition to all members of the Duke Canine Cognition Center for help with data collection and testing. This work was supported in part by the Vertical Integration Program, the Duke Undergraduate Research Support Office, Office of Naval Research Grant No. N00014-12-1-0095, and National Institute of Health Grant 5 R03 HD070649-02.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

The experiments comply with the current laws of the United States.

Supplementary material

10071_2013_633_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (33 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 32 kb)
10071_2013_633_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (81 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 81 kb)

References

  1. Adams B, Chan A, Callahan H, Siwak C, Tapp D, Ikeda-Douglas C, Atkinson P, Head E, Cotman C, Milgram N (2000) Use of a delayed non-matching to position task to model age-dependent cognitive decline in the dog. Behav Brain Res 108(1):47–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food location that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3(2):107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alain C, Woods DL (1999) Age-related changes in processing auditory stimuli during visual attention: evidence for deficits in inhibitory control and sensory memory. Psychol Aging 14(3):507–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates. Curr Biol 18(18):1415–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ariely D, Wertenbroch K (2002) Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: self-control by precommitment. Psych Sci 13(3):219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batt LS, Batt MS, Baguley JA, McGreevy PD (2008) Factors associated with success in guide dog training. J Vet Behav 3(4):143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister RF (2002) Ego depletion and self-control failure: an energy model of the self’s executive function. Self Identity 1(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM (1998) Ego depletion: is the active self a limited resource? J Pers Soc Psychol 74(5):1252–1265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumeister RF, Vohs KD, DeWall CN, Zhang L (2007) How emotion shapes behavior: feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 11(2):167–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonanni R, Natoli E, Cafazzo S, Valsecchi P (2011) Free-ranging dogs assess the quantity of opponents in intergroup conflicts. Anim Cogn 14(1):103–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boogert NJ, Anderson RC, Peters S, Searcy WA, Nowicki S (2011) Song repertoire size in male song sparrows correlates with detour reaching, but not with other cognitive measures. Anim Behav 81(6):1209–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Braver TS, Barch DM, Keys BA, Carter CS, Cohen JD, Kaye JA, Janowsky JS, Taylor SF, Yesavage JA, Mumenthaler MS (2001) Context processing in older adults: evidence for a theory relating cognitive control to neurobiology in healthy aging. J Exp Psychol [Gen] 130(4):746–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callender KA, Olson SL, Kerr DCR, Sameroff AJ (2010) Assessment of cheating behavior in young school-age children: distinguishing normative behaviors from risk markers of externalizing psychopathology. J Clin Child Adolesc 39(6):776–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coppinger R, Schneider R (1995) Evolution of working dogs. In: Serpell J (ed) The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 21–47Google Scholar
  15. Dempster FN (1992) The rise and fall of the inhibitory mechanism: toward a unified theory of cognitive development and aging. Dev Rev 12(1):45–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diamond A (1981) Retrieval of an object from an open box: the development of visual-tactile control of reaching in the first year of life. In: Society for Research in Child Abstracts, p 78Google Scholar
  17. Diamond A (1990) Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of, inhibitory control in reaching. Ann NY Acad Sci 608(1):637–676PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diamond A, Goldman-Rakic PS (1989) Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget’s AB task: evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Exp Brain Res 74(1):24–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duckworth AL, Seligman ME (2005) Self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychol Sci 16(12):939–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans TA, Beran MJ (2007) Chimpanzees use self-distraction to cope with impulsivity. Biol Lett 3(6):599–602PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gailliot MT, Baumeister RF, DeWall CN, Maner JK, Plant EA, Tice DM, Brewer LE, Schmeichel BJ (2007) Self-control relies on glucose as a limited energy source: willpower is more than a metaphor. J Pers Soc Psychol 92(2):325–336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goddard ME, Beilharz RG (1983) Genetics of traits which determine the suitability of dogs as guide-dogs for the blind. Appl Anim Ethol 9(3–4):299–315. doi: 10.1016/0304-3762(83)90010-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113(2):173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hare B, Woods V (2013) The genius of dogs: how dogs are smarter than you think. Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2(1):137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasher L, Zacks RT (1988) Working memory, comprehension, and aging: a review and a new view. Psychol Learn Motiv 22:193–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasher L, Stoltzfus ER, Zacks RT, Rypma B (1991) Age and inhibition. J Exp Psychol Learn 17(1):163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ittyerah M, Gaunet F (2009) The response of guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) to cues of human referential communication (pointing and gaze). Anim Cogn 12(2):257–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaminski J, Fischer J, Call J (2008) Prospective object search in dogs: mixed evidence for knowledge of what and where. Anim Cogn 11(2):367–371PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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? Anim Cogn 15(4):737–743PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kundey SMA, De Los ReyesA, Taglang C, Baruch A, German R (2010) Domesticated dogs’ (Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle. Anim Cogn 13(3):497–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MacNulty DR, Mech LD, Smith DW (2007) A proposed ethogram of large-carnivore predatory behavior, exemplified by the wolf. J Mammal 88(3):595–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maejima M, Inoue-Murayama M, Tonosaki K, Matsuura N, Kato S, Saito Y, Weiss A, Murayama Y, Ito S (2007) Traits and genotypes may predict the successful training of drug detection dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 107(3–4):287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Ferrario A, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2011) Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Anim Behav 81(6):1177–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCulloch M, Jezierski T, Broffman M, Hubbard A, Turner K, Janecki T (2006) Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early-and late-stage lung and breast cancers. Integr Cancer Ther 5(1):30–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1(2):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller HC, Pattison KF, DeWall CN, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall TR (2010) Self-control without a “self”?: common self-control processes in humans and dogs. Psychol Sci 21(4):534–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mischel W (2004) Toward an integrative science of the person. Annu Rev Psychol 55:1–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mischel W, Rodriguez ML (1993) Psychological distance in self-imposed delay of gratification. In: Cocking R (ed) The development and meaning of psychological distance. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., England, pp 109–121Google Scholar
  40. Moffitt TE, Arseneault L, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington HL, Houts R, Poulton R, Roberts BW, Ross S (2011) A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(7):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Morton ES (1977) On the occurrence and significance of motivation-structural rules in some bird and mammal sounds. Am Nat 111(981):855–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oaten M, Cheng K (2006a) Improved self-control: the benefits of a regular program of academic study. Basic Appl Soc Psych 28(1):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oaten M, Cheng K (2006b) Longitudinal gains in self-regulation from regular physical exercise. Br J Health Psych 11(4):717–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Osthaus B, Marlow D, Ducat P (2010) Minding the gap: spatial perseveration error in dogs. Anim Cogn 13(6):881–885PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Osvath M, Osvath H (2008) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and orangutan (Pongo abelii) forethought: self-control and pre-experience in the face of future tool use. Anim Cogn 11(4):661–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pettersson H, Kaminski J, Herrmann E, Tomasello M (2011) Understanding of human communicative motives in domestic dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 133(3–4):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piaget J (1954) The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pickel D, Manucy GP, Walker DB, Hall SB, Walker JC (2004) Evidence for canine olfactory detection of melanoma. Appl Anim Behav Sci 89(1):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ridderinkhof KR, van den Wildenberg WPM, Segalowitz SJ, Carter CS (2004) Neurocognitive mechanisms of cognitive control: the role of prefrontal cortex in action selection, response inhibition, performance monitoring, and reward-based learning. Brain Cogn 56(2):129–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75(3):1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sanders MA, Shirk SD, Burgin CJ, Martin LL (2012) The gargle effect rinsing the mouth with glucose enhances self-control. Psychol Sci 23(12):1470–1472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos LR, Ericson BN, Hauser MD (1999) Constraints on problem solving and inhibition: object retrieval in cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus oedipus). J Comp Psychol 113(2):186–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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):e21676PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmutz S, Schmutz J (1998) Heritability estimates of behaviors associated with hunting in dogs. J Hered 89(3):233–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shoda Y, Mischel W, Peake PK (1990) Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: identifying diagnostic conditions. Dev Psychol 26(6):978–986. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Soltis J, Thomsen R, Takenaka O (2001) The interaction of male and female reproductive strategies and paternity in wild Japanese macaques, Macaca fuscata. Anim Behav 62(3):485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sonoda H, Kohnoe S, Yamazato T, Satoh Y, Morizono G, Shikata K, Morita M, Watanabe A, Kakeji Y (2011) Colorectal cancer screening with odour material by canine scent detection. Gut 60(6):814–819PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stevens JR, Hallinan EV, Hauser MD (2005) The ecology and evolution of patience in two New World monkeys. Biol Lett 1(2):223–226PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Studzinski CM, Araujo JA, Milgram NW (2005) The canine model of human cognitive aging and dementia: pharmacological validity of the model for assessment of human cognitive-enhancing drugs. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 29(3):489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tapp PD, Siwak CT, Estrada J, Head E, Muggenburg BA, Cotman CW, Milgram NW (2003) Size and reversal learning in the beagle dog as a measure of executive function and inhibitory control in aging. Learn Memory 10(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Topál J, Gergely G, Erdohegyi Á, Csibra G, Miklósi Á (2009) Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325(5945):1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tsukayama E, Duckworth AL (2010) Domain-specific temporal discounting and temptation. Judgment Decision Mak 5(2):72–82Google Scholar
  63. Tsukayama E, Duckworth AL, Kim B (2011) Resisting everything except temptation: evidence and an explanation for domain-specific impulsivity. Eur J Pers 26(3):318–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vlamings PHJM, Hare B, Call J (2010) Reaching around barriers: the performance of the great apes and 3–5-year-old children. Anim Cogn 13(2):273–285PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ward C, Smuts BB (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10(1):71–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West RL (1996) An application of prefrontal cortex function theory to cognitive aging. Psychol Bull 120(2):272–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiesner M, Kim HK, Capaldi DM (2010) History of juvenile arrests and vocational career outcomes for at-risk young men. J Res Crime Delinq 47(1):91–117PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wobber V, Hare B (2009) Testing the social dog hypothesis: are dogs also more skilled than chimpanzees in non-communicative social tasks? Behav Process 81(3):423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wright HF, Mills DS, Pollux PMJ (2012) Behavioural and physiological correlates of impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Physiol Behav 105(3):676–682. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.09.019 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily E. Bray
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evan L. MacLean
    • 2
  • Brian A. Hare
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Evolutionary AnthropologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Center for Cognitive NeuroscienceDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations