Advertisement

What smells? Gauging attention to olfaction in canine cognition research

  • Alexandra HorowitzEmail author
  • Becca Franks
Original Paper

Abstract

One of the challenges of animal cognition research is overcoming anthropocentric sensory biases—in particular, favoring visual information and cues despite the dominance of other sensory cues in many nonhuman research subjects. As such, it is particularly important for animal cognition researchers to explicitly mention steps taken to control for and attend to the sensory world of their study species. Dogs are well known for their reliance on olfaction, but the extent to which dog cognition and behavior research accounts for olfactory cues or incorporates olfactory controls is unknown. With this bibliographic study, we reviewed canine research published in the past 10 years (2008–2018) in 13 scientific journals and coded the 481 resulting papers for mentions of olfactory or odor cues or controls. Our findings indicate that despite widespread acceptance of the significance of olfaction to dogs, scientific methodology rarely takes olfactory information processing into account. Finally, we propose a simple rubric of recommended reporting of olfactory information in research contexts, with the aims to help attune researchers to the umwelt of their study subjects, and to enhance the methodological reproducibility of canine cognition research.

Keywords

Domestic dog Cognition Olfaction Methodology Reproducibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Madelyn Baker, Melissa Flores, and David Stoll for search assistance. Thank you to three reviewers who provided helpful feedback on our submission.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Dataset

The datasets generated during and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Aharoni D, Khakh BS, Silva AJ, Golshani P (2019) All the light that we can see: a new era in miniaturized microscopy. Nat Methods 16:11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amerine MA, Pangborn RV, Roesssler EB (1965) Principles of sensory evaluation of food. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Andics A, Gácsi M, Farago T, Kis A, Miklosi Á (2014) Voice-sensitive regions in the dog and human brain are revealed by comparative fMRI. Curr Biol 24:574–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrera G, Fagnani J, Carballo F, Giamal Y, Bentosela M (2015) Effects of learning on social and nonsocial behaviors during a problem-solving task in shelter and pet dogs. J Vet Behav 10:307–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batty C (2010) A representational account of olfactory experience. Can J Philos 40:511–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bau J, Cardé RT (2015) Modeling optimal strategies for finding a resource-linked, windborne odor plume: theories, robotics, and biomimetic lessons from flying insects. Integr Comp Biol 55:461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bekoff M, Allen C, Burghardt GM (2002) The cognitive animal. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bensky M, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Study Behav 45:209–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berns GS, Brooks AM, Spivak M (2015) Scent of the familiar: an fMRI study of canine brain responses to familiar and unfamiliar human and dog odors. Behav Proc 110:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 120:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bray EE, MacLean EL, Hare BA (2014) Context specificity of inhibitory control in dogs. Anim Cogn 17:15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Breed MD, Moore J (2012) Animal behavior. Academic Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Byosiere S-E, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2018) What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research. Psychonom Bull Rev 25:1798–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carballo F, Freidin E, Putrino N, Shimabukuro C, Casanave E, Bentosela M (2015) Dog’s discrimination of human selfish and generous attitudes: the role of individual recognition experience and experimenters’ gender. PLoS One 10:e0116314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carballo F, Freidin E, Casanave EB, Bentosela M (2017) Dogs’ recognition of human selfish and generous attitudes requires little but critical experience with people. PLoS One 12:e0185696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D’Aniello B, Semin GR, Alterisio A, Aria M, Scandurra A (2018) Interspecies transmission of emotional information via chemosignals: from humans to dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 21:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elgier AM, Jakovcevic A, Mustaca AE, Bentosela M (2009) Learning and owner-stranger effects on interspecific communication in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Behav Proc 81:44–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fugazza C, Miklósi Á (2014) Deferred imitation and declarative memory in domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 17:237–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fugazza C, Mongillo P, Marinelli L (2017) Sex differences in dogs’ social learning of spatial information. Anim Cogn 20:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadbois S, Reeve C (2014) Canine olfaction: scent sign and situation. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog cognition and behavior: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gagliardo A (2013) Forty years of olfactory navigation in birds. J Exp Biol 216:2165–2171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA (2016) What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 8:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmedaaf5027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hauser MD, Comins JA, Pytka LM, Cahill DP, Velez-Calderon S (2011) What experimental experience affects dogs’ comprehension of human communicative actions? Behav Proc 86:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hegedüs D, Bálint A, Miklósi Á, Pongrácz P (2013) Owners fail to influence the choices of dogs in a two-choice visual pointing task. Behav 150:427–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hepper PG (1988) The discrimination of human odor by the dog. Perception 17:549–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horowitz A (2017) Smelling themselves: dogs investigate their own odours longer when modified in an “olfactory mirror” test. Behav Proc 143C:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Horowitz A, Hecht J (2014) Looking at dogs: Moving from anthropocentrism to canid umwelt. In: Horowitz A (ed) Domestic dog cognition and behavior: the scientific study of Canis familiaris. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Horowitz A, Hecht J, Dedrick A (2013) Smelling more or less: investigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog. Learn Motiv 44:207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenkins EK, DeChant MT, Perry EB (2018) When the nose doesn’t know: canine olfactory function associated with health management and potential links to microbiota. Front Vet Sci 5:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lazarowski L, Dorman DC (2014) Explosives detection by military working dogs: olfactory generalization from components to mixtures. Appl Anim Behav Sci 151:84–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller HC, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall TR (2009) Imitation and emulation by dogs using a bidirectional control procedure. Behav Proc 80:109–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cognit 14:525-533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nielsen B (2018) Making sense of it all: the importance of taking into account the sensory abilities of animals in their housing and management. Appl Anim Behav Sci 205:175–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielsen BL, Jezierski T, Bolhuis JE, Amo L, Rosell F, Oostindjer M, Christensen JW, McKeegan D, Wells DL, Hepper P (2015) Olfaction: an overlooked sensory modality in applied ethology and animal welfare. Front Vet Sci 2:69.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets201500069 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Partan S, Marler P (2002) The Umwelt and its relevance to animal communication: introduction to special issue. J Comp Psychol 116(2):116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Polgár Z, Miklósi Á, Gácsi M (2015) Strategies used by pet dogs for solving olfaction-based problems at various distances. PLoS One 10(7):e0131610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pongrácz P, Bánhegyi P, Miklósi Á (2012) When rank counts—dominant dogs learn better from a human demonstrator in a two-action test. Behaviour 149:111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pongrácz P, Ujvári V, Faragó T, Miklósi Á, Péter A (2017) Do you see what I see? The difference between dog and human visual perception may affect the outcome of experiments. Behav Proc 140:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reed SE, Bidlack AL, Hurt A, Getz WM (2011) Detection distance and environmental factors in conservation detection dog surveys. J Wildl Manag 75:243–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rice S, Koziel JA (2015) The relationship between chemical concentration and odor activity value explains the inconsistency in making a comprehensive surrogate scent training tool representative of illicit drugs. Forensic Sci Int 257:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75:1003–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Szetei V, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2003) When dogs seem to lose their nose: an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context between dog and owner. Appl Anim Behav Sci 83:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Walker DB, Walker JC, Cavnar PJ, Taylor JL, Pickel DH, Hall SB, Suarez JC (2006) Naturalistic quantification of canine olfactory sensitivity. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walker JK, Waran NK, Phillips CJC (2014) The effect of conspecific removal on the behaviour and physiology of pair-housed shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 148:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward C, Smuts B (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yong MH, Ruffman T (2015) Domestic dogs match human male voices to faces, but not for females. Behav 152:1585–1600CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBarnard CollegeNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental StudiesNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations