Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 793–803 | Cite as

How dogs scan familiar and inverted faces: an eye movement study

  • Sanni Somppi
  • Heini Törnqvist
  • Laura Hänninen
  • Christina M. Krause
  • Outi Vainio
Original Paper

Abstract

Faces play an important role in communication and identity recognition in social animals. Domestic dogs often respond to human facial cues, but their face processing is weakly understood. In this study, facial inversion effect (deficits in face processing when the image is turned upside down) and responses to personal familiarity were tested using eye movement tracking. A total of 23 pet dogs and eight kennel dogs were compared to establish the effects of life experiences on their scanning behavior. All dogs preferred conspecific faces and showed great interest in the eye area, suggesting that they perceived images representing faces. Dogs fixated at the upright faces as long as the inverted faces, but the eye area of upright faces gathered longer total duration and greater relative fixation duration than the eye area of inverted stimuli, regardless of the species (dog or human) shown in the image. Personally, familiar faces and eyes attracted more fixations than the strange ones, suggesting that dogs are likely to recognize conspecific and human faces in photographs. The results imply that face scanning in dogs is guided not only by the physical properties of images, but also by semantic factors. In conclusion, in a free-viewing task, dogs seem to target their fixations at naturally salient and familiar items. Facial images were generally more attractive for pet dogs than kennel dogs, but living environment did not affect conspecific preference or inversion and familiarity responses, suggesting that the basic mechanisms of face processing in dogs could be hardwired or might develop under limited exposure.

Keywords

Domestic dog Eye movement tracking Face processing Face inversion effect Face familiarity 

References

  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. Althoff RR, Cohen NJ (1999) Eye-movement-based memory effect: a reprocessing effect in face perception. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 25:997–1010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Autier-Dérian D, Deputte BL, Chalvet-Monfray K, Coulon M, Mounier L (2013) Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 16:637–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera G, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2011) Communication between domestic dogs and humans: effects of shelter housing upon the gaze to the human. Anim Cogn 14:727–734PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barton J, Radcliffe N, Cherkasova MV, Edelman J, Intriligator JM (2006) Information processing during face recognition: the effects of familiarity, inversion, and morphing on scanning fixations. Perception 35:1089–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bethell EJ, Holmes A, Maclarnon A, Semple S (2012) Evidence that emotion mediates social attention in rhesus macaques. PLoS ONE 7(8):e44387. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044387 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovet D, Vauclair J (2000) Picture recognition in animals and humans. Behav Brain Res 109:143–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruce C (1982) Face recognition by monkeys: absence of an inversion effect. Neuropsychologia 20:515–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruce V, Young A (1986) Understanding face recognition. Br J Psychol 77:305–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunet PM, Heisz JJ, Mondloch CJ, Shore DI, Schmidt LA (2009) Shyness and face scanning in children. J Anxiety Disord 23:909–914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotman CW, Head E (2008) The Canine (Dog) Model of human aging and disease: dietary, environmental and immunotherapy approaches. J Alzheimers Dis 15:685–707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulon M, Deputte BL, Heyman Y, Baudoin C (2009) Individual recognition in domestic cattle (Bos taurus): evidence from 2D-images of heads from different breeds. PLoS ONE 4(2):e4441. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004441 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coulon M, Baudoin C, Heyman Y, Deputte BL (2011) Cattle discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by using only head visual cues. Anim Cogn 14:279–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl CD, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH, Logothetis NK (2009) Humans and macaques employ similar face-processing strategies. Curr Biol 19:509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diamond R, Carey S (1986) Why faces are and are not special: an effect of expertise. J Exp Psychol 115:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fagot J, Martin-Malivel J, De′py D (1999) What is the evidence for an equivalence between objects and pictures in birds and nonhuman primates? Curr Psychol Cogn 18:923–949Google Scholar
  17. Gamble AL, Rapee RM (2010) The time-course of attention to emotional faces in social phobia. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 41(1):39–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibboni RR, Zimmerman PE, Gothard KM (2009) Individual differences in scan paths correspond with serotonin transporter genotype and behavioral phenotype in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Front Behav Neurosci 3(50):1–11. doi:10.3389/neuro.08.050.2009 Google Scholar
  19. Gothard KM, Brooks KN, Peterson MA (2009) Multiple perceptual strategies used by macaque monkeys for face recognition. Anim Cogn 12:155–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo K, Robertson RG, Mahmoodi S, Tadmor Y, Young MP (2003) How do monkeys view faces?: a study of eye movements. Exp Brain Res 150:363–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Guo K, Meints K, Hall C, Hall S, Mills D (2009) Left gaze bias in humans, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 12:409–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hattori Y, Kano F, Tomonaga M (2010) Differential sensitivity to conspecific and allospecific cues in chimpanzees and humans: a comparative eye-tracking study. Biol Lett 6:610–613PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heisz JJ, Shore DI (2008) More efficient scanning for familiar faces. J Vis 8(1):1–10. doi:10.1167/8.1.9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henderson JM, Hollingworth A (1999) High-level scene perception. Annu Rev Psychol 50:243–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirata S, Fuwa K, Sugama K, Kusunoki K, Fujita S (2010) Facial perception of conspecifics: chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) preferentially attend to proper orientation and open eyes. Anim Cogn 13:679–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horn L, Range F, Huber L (2013) Dogs’ attention towards humans depends on their relationship, not only on social familiarity. Anim Cogn 16:435–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jakovcevic A, Elgier AM, Mustaca A, Bentosela M (2012) Do more sociable dogs gaze longer to the human face than less sociable ones? Behav Process 90:217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Johnston RA, Edmonds AJ (2009) Familiar and unfamiliar face recognition: a review. Memory 17:577–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kano F, Tomonaga M (2011) Perceptual mechanism underlying gaze guidance in chimpanzees and humans. Anim Cogn 14:377–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaspar K, König P (2012) Emotions and personality traits as high-level factors in visual attention: a review. Front Hum Neurosci 6:321. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00321 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keating CF, Keating EG (1993) Monkeys and mug shots: cues used by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) to recognize a human face. J Comp Psychol 107:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Broad KD, Fabre-Nys C, Keverne EB (1995) Facial and vocal discrimination in sheep. Anim Behav 49:1665–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Heavens P, Keverne B (1996) Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity. Behav Process 38:19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kujala MV, Törnqvist H, Somppi S, Hänninen L, Krause CM, Kujala J, Vainio O (2013) Reactivity of dogs’ brain oscillations to visual stimuli measured with non-invasive electroencephalography. PLoS ONE 8(5):e61818. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061818 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lakatos G (2011) Evolutionary approach to communication between humans and dogs. Ann Ist Super Sanità 47:373–377PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Leonard TK, Blumenthal G, Gothard KM, Hoffman KL (2012) How macaques view familiarity and gaze in conspecific faces. Behav Neurosci. doi:10.1037/a0030348 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Leopold DA, Rhodes G (2010) A Comparative view of face perception. J Comp Psychol 124:233–251PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marechal L, Roeder JJ (2010) Recognition of faces of known individuals in two lemur species (Eulemur fulvus and E. macaco). Anim Behav 79:1157–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maurer D, Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ (2002) The many faces of configural processing. Trends Cogn Sci 6:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neiworth JJ, Hassett JM, Sylvester CJ (2007) Face processing in humans and new world monkeys: the influence of experiential and ecological factors. Anim Cogn 10:125–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Niu Y, Todd RM, Anderson AK (2012) Affective salience can reverse the effects of stimulus-driven salience on eye movements in complex scenes. Front Psychol 3:336. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00336 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Parr LA (2011a) The evolution of face processing in primates. Philos Trans R Soc B 366:1764–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parr LA (2011b) The inversion effect reveals species differences in face processing. Acta Psychol (Amst) 138:204–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parr LA, Dove T, Hopkins WD (1998) Why faces may be special: evidence of the inversion effect in chimpanzees. J Cogn Neurosci 10:615–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parr LA, Winslow JT, Hopkins WD, de Waal FBM (2000) Recognizing facial cues: individual discrimination by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). J Comp Psychol 114:47–60PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parr LA, Siebert E, Taubert J (2011) Effect of familiarity and viewpoint on face recognition in chimpanzees. Perception 40:863–872PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Passalacqua C, Marshall-Pescini S, Barnard S, Lakatos G, Valsecchi P, Previde EP (2011) Human-directed gazing behaviour in puppies and adult dogs, Canis lupus familiaris. Anim Behav 82:1043–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Phelps MT, Roberts WA (1994) Memory for pictures of upright and inverted primate faces in humans (Homo sapiens), squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus), and pigeons (Columba livia). J Comp Psychol 108:114–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pokorny JJ, de Waal FBM (2009) Monkeys recognize the faces of group mates in photographs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:21539–21543PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pokorny JJ, Webb CE, de Waal FB (2011) An inversion effect modified by expertise in capuchin monkeys. Anim Cogn 14:839–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Racca A, Amadei E, Ligout S, Guo K, Meints K, Mills D (2010) Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 13:525–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rossion B (2008) Picture-plane inversion leads to qualitative changes of face perception. Acta Psychol (Amst) 128:274–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schell A, Rieck K, Schell K, Hammerschmidt K, Fischer J (2011) Adult but not juvenile Barbary macaques spontaneously recognize group members from pictures. Anim Cogn 14:503–509PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Somppi S, Törnqvist H, Hanninen L, Krause C, Vainio O (2012) Dogs do look at images: eye tracking in canine cognition research. Anim Cogn 15:163–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stone SM (2010) Human facial discrimination in horses: can they tell us apart? Anim Cogn 13:51–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanaka JW, Farah MJ (1993) Parts and wholes in face recognition. Q J Exp Psychol A 46:225–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tate AJ, Fischer H, Leigh AE, Kendrick KM (2006) Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361:2155–2172PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Téglás E, Gergely A, Kupán K, Miklósi Á, Topál J (2012) Dogs’ Gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Curr Biol 22:209–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Topál J, Miklósi Á, Gácsi M, Dóka A, Pongrácz P, Kubinyi E, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2009) The dog as a model for understanding human social behavior. In: Brockmann HJ, Roper TJ, Naguib M, Wynne-Edwards KE, Mitani JC, Simmons LW (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, vol 39. Academic Press, Burlington, pp 71–116Google Scholar
  60. Törnqvist H, Kujala MV, Somppi S, Hänninen L, Pastell M, Krause CM, Kujala J, Vainio O (2013) Visual event-related potentials of dogs: a non-invasive electroencephalography study. Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-013-0630-2 Google Scholar
  61. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2010a) The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Anim Behav 79:717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2010b) What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol Rev 85:327–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Belle G, Ramon M, Lefèvre P, Rossion B (2010) Fixation patterns during recognition of personally familiar and unfamiliar faces. Front Psychology 1:20. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00020 Google Scholar
  64. Vas J, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi A, Csányi V (2005) A friend or an enemy? Dogs’ reaction to an unfamiliar person showing behavioural cues of threat and friendliness at different times. Appl Anim Behav Sci 94:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wobber V, Hare B, Koler-Matznick J, Wrangham R, Tomasello M (2009) Breed differences in domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) comprehension of human communicative signals. Interact Stud 10:206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yarbus AL (1967) Eye movements and vision. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanni Somppi
    • 1
  • Heini Törnqvist
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laura Hänninen
    • 1
  • Christina M. Krause
    • 2
  • Outi Vainio
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Veterinary MedicineUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations