Animal Cognition

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1317–1329 | Cite as

Increasing arousal enhances inhibitory control in calm but not excitable dogs

Original Paper

Abstract

The emotional-reactivity hypothesis proposes that problem-solving abilities can be constrained by temperament, within and across species. One way to test this hypothesis is with the predictions of the Yerkes–Dodson law. The law posits that arousal level, a component of temperament, affects problem solving in an inverted U-shaped relationship: Optimal performance is reached at intermediate levels of arousal and impeded by high and low levels. Thus, a powerful test of the emotional-reactivity hypothesis is to compare cognitive performance in dog populations that have been bred and trained based in part on their arousal levels. We therefore compared a group of pet dogs to a group of assistance dogs bred and trained for low arousal (N = 106) on a task of inhibitory control involving a detour response. Consistent with the Yerkes–Dodson law, assistance dogs, which began the test with lower levels of baseline arousal, showed improvements when arousal was artificially increased. In contrast, pet dogs, which began the test with higher levels of baseline arousal, were negatively affected when their arousal was increased. Furthermore, the dogs’ baseline levels of arousal, as measured in their rate of tail wagging, differed by population in the expected directions. Low-arousal assistance dogs showed the most inhibition in a detour task when humans eagerly encouraged them, while more highly aroused pet dogs performed worst on the same task with strong encouragement. Our findings support the hypothesis that selection on temperament can have important implications for cognitive performance.

Keywords

Inhibitory control Arousal Canine Cognition Assistance dogs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to R. Seyfarth, D. Cheney, J. Serpell, A. Duckworth, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on drafts and statistical analysis, as well as A. Gersick, I. Schamberg, and N. Snyder-Mackler for thoughtful discussion. We also thank K. Morucci and L. Lewis for help with coding, along with K. Duffy, E. Blumstein, T. Jones, A. Reinhardt, L. Thielke, L. Strassberg, M. Jackson, C. Wang, and members of the Duke Canine Cognition Center for assistance with data collection and testing. We are extremely grateful to the administration, trainers, and staff at Canine Companions for Independence, and especially Paul Mundell, former National Director of Canine Programs and current Chief Executive Officer, for allowing us to work with their dogs and use their state-of-the-art facilities. This work was supported in part by the Vertical Integration Program, the Duke Undergraduate Research Support Office, the AKC Canine Health Foundation, a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1321851, Office of Naval Research Grant No. NOOO14-12-1-0095, and National Institute of Health Grant 5 R03 HD070649-02. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or the AKC Canine Health Foundation.

Funding

The study was funded by the AKC Canine Health Foundation, the National Science Foundation (Grant No. DGE-1321851), the Office of Naval Research (Grant No. NOOO14-12-1-0095), and the National Institute of Health (Grant No. 5 R03 HD070649-02). All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.

Supplementary material

10071_2015_901_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 14 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (MPG 8556 kb)

10071_2015_901_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (50 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 49 kb)

References

  1. Amici F, Aureli F, Call J (2008) Fission-fusion dynamics, behavioral flexibility, and inhibitory control in primates. Curr Biol 18(18):1415–1419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson KJ (1990) Arousal and the inverted-u hypothesis: a critique of Neiss’s “Reconceptualizing arousal”. Psychol Bull 107(1):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson KJ (1994) Impulsitivity, caffeine, and task difficulty: a within-subjects test of the Yerkes–Dodson law. Personal Individ Differ 16(6):813–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair C, Diamond A (2008) Biological processes in prevention and intervention: the promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Dev Psychopathol 20(3):899–911PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bray EE, MacLean EL, Hare BA (2014) Context specificity of inhibitory control in dogs. Anim Cogn 17(1):15–31PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Broadhurst P (1957) Emotionality and the Yerkes–Dodson law. J Exp Psychol 54(5):345–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadhurst P (1959) The interaction of task difficulty and motivation: the Yerkes–Dodson law revived. Acta Psychol 16:321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cieri RL, Churchill SE, Franciscus RG, Tan J, Hare B (2014) Craniofacial feminization, social tolerance, and the origins of behavioral modernity. Curr Anthropol 55(4):419–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole LW (1911) The relation of strength of stimulus to rate of learning in the chick. J Anim Behav 1(2):111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawley MJ (2005) Statistics: an introduction using R. Wiley, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond A (1990) Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of, inhibitory control in reaching. Ann N Y Acad Sci 608(1):637–676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond A (2010) The evidence base for improving school outcomes by addressing the whole child and by addressing skills and attitudes, not just content. Early Educ Dev 21(5):780–793PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamond A, Zola-Morgan S, Squire LR (1989) Successful performance by monkeys with lesions of the hippocampal formation on AB and object retrieval, two tasks that mark developmental changes in human infants. Behav Neurosci 103(3):526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dodson J (1915) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation in the kitten. J Anim Behav 5(4):330–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodson J (1917) Relative values of reward and punishment in habit formation. Psychobiology 1(3):231–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duffy E (1957) The psychological significance of the concept of “arousal” or “activation”. Psychol Rev 64(5):265–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenck HJ (2002) The dynamics of anxiety & hysteria: an experimental application of modern learning theory to psychiatry. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  19. Fox MW, Stelzner D (1966) Behavioural effects of differential early experience in the dog. Anim Behav 14(2–3):273–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank H, Frank MG (1982) Comparison of problem-solving performance in six-week-old wolves and dogs. Anim Behav 30(1):95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freedman DG, King JA, Elliot O (1961) Critical period in the social development of dogs. Science 133(3457):1016–1017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005a) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005b) The emotional reactivity hypothesis and cognitive evolution: reply to Miklósi and Topál. Trends Cogn Sci 9(10):464–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hare Plyusnina I, Ignacio N, Schepina O, Stepika A, Wrangham R, Trut L (2005) Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr Biol 15(3):226–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hare B, Melis AP, Woods V, Hastings S, Wrangham R (2007) Tolerance allows bonobos to outperform chimpanzees on a cooperative task. Curr Biol 17(7):619–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hare B, Wobber V, Wrangham R (2012) The self-domestication hypothesis: evolution of bonobo psychology is due to selection against aggression. Anim Behav 83:573–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hebb DO (1955) Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychol Rev 62(4):243–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hernádi A, Kis A, Turcsán B, Topál J (2012) Man’s underground best friend: domestic ferrets, unlike the wild forms, show evidence of dog-like social-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE 7(8):e43267PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsu Y, Serpell JA (2003) Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 223(9):1293–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones AC (2008) Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire. University of Texas at Austin, Austin. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Google Scholar
  31. Kagan J, Snidman N (2004) The long shadow of temperament. Belknap Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. MacLean E, Hare B (2013) Spontaneous triadic engagement in bonobos (Pan paniscus) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). J Comp Psychol 127(3):245–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLean EL, Hare B, Nunn CL, Addessi E, Amici F, Anderson RC, Aureli F, Baker JM, Bania AE, Barnard AM (2014) The evolution of self-control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(20):E2140–E2148PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P, Petak I, Accorsi PA, Previde EP (2008) Does training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs’ performance (Canis familiaris) in a problem solving task. Behav Process 78(3):449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall-Pescini S, Virányi Z, Range F (2015) The effect of domestication on inhibitory control: wolves and dogs compared. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0118469PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McGowan RT, Rehn T, Norling Y, Keeling LJ (2014) Positive affect and learning: exploring the “Eureka Effect” in dogs. Anim Cogn 17(3):577–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McGreevy PD, Georgevsky D, Carrasco J, Valenzuela M, Duffy DL, Serpell JA (2013) Dog behavior co-varies with height, bodyweight and skull shape. PLoS ONE 8(12):e80529PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Melis AP, Hare B, Tomasello M (2006) Engineering cooperation in chimpanzees: tolerance constraints on cooperation. Anim Behav 72(2):275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miklósi Á (2007) Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle 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. Osthaus B, Marlow D, Ducat P (2010) Minding the gap: spatial perseveration error in dogs. Anim Cogn 13(6):881–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Parker KJ, Buckmaster CL, Justus KR, Schatzberg AF, Lyons DM (2005) Mild early life stress enhances prefrontal-dependent response inhibition in monkeys. Biol Psychiatry 57(8):848–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Parker KJ, Buckmaster CL, Lindley SE, Schatzberg AF, Lyons DM (2012) Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis physiology and cognitive control of behavior in stress inoculated monkeys. Int J Behav Dev 36(1):45–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pluijmakers JJ, Appleby DL, Bradshaw JW (2010) Exposure to video images between 3 and 5 weeks of age decreases neophobia in domestic dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 126(1):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Gurobi K, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Social learning in dogs: the effect of a human demonstrator on the performance of dogs in a detour task. Anim Behav 62(6):1109–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prescott MJ, Morton DB, Anderson D, Buckwell A, Heath S, Hubrecht R, Jennings M, Robb MD, Ruane MB, Swallow MJ (2004) Refining dog husbandry and care: eighth report of the BVA AWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW joint working group on refinement. Lab Anim 38:S1–S90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Vallortigara G (2007) Asymmetric tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stimuli. Curr Biol 17(6):R199–R201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org
  49. Rehn T (2013) Best of Friends? Investigating the dog–human relationship. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  50. Rehn T, Keeling LJ (2011) The effect of time left alone at home on dog welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 129(2):129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Revelle W, Loftus DA (1992) The implications of arousal effects for the study of affect and memory. In: Christianson SA (ed) The handbook of emotion and memory: research and theory. Psychology Press, New York, pp 113–149Google Scholar
  52. Rosati AG, Hare B (2013) Chimpanzees and bonobos exhibit emotional responses to decision outcomes. PLoS ONE 8(5):e63058PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Schlosberg H (1954) Three dimensions of emotion. Psychol Rev 61(2):81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Serpell JA, Duffy DL (2014) Chapter 2: dog breeds and their behavior. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog cognition and behavior. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tooby J, Cosmides L (2005) Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In: Buss DM (ed) The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 5–67Google Scholar
  56. Topál Erdőhegyi Á, Mányik R, Miklós Á (2006) Mindreading in a dog: an adaptation of a primate mental attribution study. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther 6(3):365–379Google Scholar
  57. 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 JH, Roper TJ, Naguib M, Wynne-Edwards KE, Mitani JC, Leigh WS (eds) Advances in the study of behavior, vol 39. Academic Press, New York, pp 71–116Google Scholar
  58. van der Meere J, Stemerdink N, Gunning B (1995) Effects of presentation rate of stimuli on response inhibition in ADHD children with and without tics. Percept Motor Skill 81(1):259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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):273–285PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Watters PA, Martin F, Schreter Z (1997) Caffeine and cognitive performance: the nonlinear Yerkes–Dodson law. Hum Psychopharm Clin 12(3):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wright HF, Mills DS, Pollux PMJ (2011) Development and validation of a psychometric tool for assessing impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Int J Comp Psychol 24(2):210–225Google Scholar
  62. Wright HF, Mills DS, Pollux PMJ (2012) Behavioural and physiological correlates of impulsivity in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Physiol Behav 105(3):676–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol 18(5):459–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily E. Bray
    • 1
  • Evan L. MacLean
    • 2
    • 4
  • 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
  4. 4.School of AnthropologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations