Animal Cognition

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 17–21 | Cite as

Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice

  • Ikuma AdachiEmail author
  • Hiroko Kuwahata
  • Kazuo Fujita
Original Article


We tested whether dogs have a cross-modal representation of human individuals. We presented domestic dogs with a photo of either the owner's or a stranger's face on the LCD monitor after playing back a voice of one of those persons. A voice and a face matched in half of the trials (Congruent condition) and mismatched in the other half (Incongruent condition). If our subjects activate visual images of the voice, their expectation would be contradicted in Incongruent condition. It would result in the subjects’ longer looking times in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. Our subject dogs looked longer at the visual stimulus in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This suggests that dogs actively generate their internal representation of the owner's face when they hear the owner calling them. This is the first demonstration that nonhuman animals do not merely associate auditory and visual stimuli but also actively generate a visual image from auditory information. Furthermore, our subject also looked at the visual stimulus longer in Incongruent condition in which the owner's face followed an unfamiliar person's voice than in Congruent condition in which the owner's face followed the owner's voice. Generating a particular visual image in response to an unfamiliar voice should be difficult, and any expected images from the voice ought to be more obscure or less well defined than that of the owners. However, our subjects looked longer at the owner's face in Incongruent condition than in Congruent condition. This may indicate that dogs may have predicted that it should not be the owner when they heard the unfamiliar person's voice.


Cross-modal representation Natural concepts Dogs 



We wish to thank all the owners of the dogs who volunteered to participate in our experiments. This study was supported by the Research Fellowships of the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for Young Scientists to Ikuma Adachi and Hiroko Kuwahata, the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 13410026, 14651020, and 17300085 from JSPS to Kazuo Fujita, and by the 21st Century COE Program, D-10, from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT), Japan, to Kyoto University. We also thank James R. Anderson for his editing of the manuscript.


  1. Aydin A, Pearce JM (1994) Prototype effects in categorization by pigeons. J Exp Psychol ABP 20:264–277Google Scholar
  2. Cerella J (1979) Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol HPP 5:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook RG, Wright AA, Kendrick DF (1990) Visual categorization by pigeons. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn SM, Munford DB (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior, vol 8. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp 187–214Google Scholar
  4. Evans TA, Howell S, Westergaard GC (2005) Auditory-visual cross-modal preception of communicative stimuli in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol ABP 31:399–406Google Scholar
  5. Fischer J, Call J, Kaminski J (2004) A pluralistic account of word learning. Trends Cogn Sci 8:481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghazanfar AA, Logothetis NK (2003) Neuroperception: Facial expressions linked to monkey calls. Nature 423:937–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598):1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hashiya K, Kojima S (1999) Auditory-visual intermodal matching by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Primate Res 15:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hashiya K, Kojima S (2001) Acquisition of auditory-visual intermodal matching to sample by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): comparison with visual-visual intramodal matching. Anim Cogn 4:231–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol ABP 2:285–302Google Scholar
  12. Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J(2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304:1682–1683PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lea SEG, Ryan CME (1993) Featural analysis of pigeons’ acquisition of discrimination between letters. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol. 4. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp 239–253Google Scholar
  14. Markman EM, Abelev M (2004) Word learning in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 8:479–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miklósi Á, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Gácsi M, Virányi Z, Csányi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog—human communication: experimental analysis of ‘showing’ behaviour in dogs. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (1992) Meaning and mind in monkeys. Sci Am 78–84Google Scholar
  19. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psychol 116:27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vilá C, Savolainen C, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice JE, Honeycutt RL, Crandall KA, Lundeberg J, Wayne RK (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276:1687–1689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs can recognize the behavioural cues of the attentional focus in humans. Behav Proc 66:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wasserman EA, DeVolder CL, Coppage DJ (1994) Non-similarity-based conceptualization by pigeons via secondary or mediated generalization. Psychol Sci 3:374–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yoshikubo S (1985) Species discrimination and concept formation by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates 26:285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zuberbühler K (2000a) Referential labeling in Diana monkeys. Anim Behav 59:917–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Zuberbühler K (2000b) Causal cognition in a non-human primate: Field playback experiments with Diana monkeys. Cognition 76:195–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zuberbühler K (2000c) Causal knowledge of predators’ behaviour in wild Diana monkeys. Anim Behav 59:209–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Graduate School of LettersKyoto University, Yoshida-honmachi, SakyoKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Yerkes National Primate Research CenterAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations