Animal Cognition

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 201–213 | Cite as

Comprehension and utilisation of pointing gestures and gazing in dog–human communication in relatively complex situations

  • Gabriella LakatosEmail author
  • Márta Gácsi
  • József Topál
  • Ádám Miklósi
Original Paper


The aim of the present investigation was to study the visual communication between humans and dogs in relatively complex situations. In the present research, we have modelled more lifelike situations in contrast to previous studies which often relied on using only two potential hiding locations and direct association between the communicative signal and the signalled object. In Study 1, we have provided the dogs with four potential hiding locations, two on each side of the experimenter to see whether dogs are able to choose the correct location based on the pointing gesture. In Study 2, dogs had to rely on a sequence of pointing gestures displayed by two different experimenters. We have investigated whether dogs are able to recognise an ‘indirect signal’, that is, a pointing toward a pointer. In Study 3, we have examined whether dogs can understand indirect information about a hidden object and direct the owner to the particular location. Study 1 has revealed that dogs are unlikely to rely on extrapolating precise linear vectors along the pointing arm when relying on human pointing gestures. Instead, they rely on a simple rule of following the side of the human gesturing. If there were more targets on the same side of the human, they showed a preference for the targets closer to the human. Study 2 has shown that dogs are able to rely on indirect pointing gestures but the individual performances suggest that this skill may be restricted to a certain level of complexity. In Study 3, we have found that dogs are able to localise the hidden object by utilising indirect human signals, and they are able to convey this information to their owner.


Dogs Communication Human gestures Indirect pointing 



The research described here was supported by the European Union (NEST 012787, LIREC-215554), the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA T049692) and ETOCOM project (TÁMOP-4.2.2-08/1/KMR-2008-0007) through the Hungarian National Development Agency in the framework of Social Renewal Operative Programme supported by EU and co-financed by the European Social Fund. The authors are grateful to all the owners who participated in this research for their support throughout the study.


  1. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food location that domestic dogs of 2 different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Butterworth GE, Itakura S (2000) How the eyes, head and hand serve definite reference. Brit J Dev Psychol l18:25–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Desrochers S, Morissette P, Ricard M (1995) Two perspectives on pointing in infancy. In: Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, pp 85–101Google Scholar
  4. Erdőhegyi Á, Topál J, Virányi Zs, Miklósi Á (2007) Dog-logic: inferential reasoning in a two-way choice task and its restricted use. Anim Behav 74:725–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gácsi M, Kara E, Belényi B, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2009a) The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Anim Cogn 12(3):471–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gácsi M, Győri B, Virányi Zs, Kubinyi E, Range F, Belényi B, Miklósi Á (2009b) Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills. Plos ONE 4(8)Google Scholar
  7. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare B, Rosati A, Kaminski J, Brauer J, Call J, Tomasello M et al (2009) The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Anim Behav 79:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horn L, Virányi Zs, Miklósi Á, Huber L, Range F (2011) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) flexibly adjust their human directed behavior to the actions of their human partners in a problem situation. Anim Cogn. doi: 10.1007/s10071-011-0432-3 (in press)
  10. Kupán K, Miklósi Á, Gergely Gy, Topál J (2010) Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task? Anim Cogn 14:259–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lakatos G, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2007) The role of visual cues in the comprehension of the human pointing signals in dogs. Int J Comp Psychol 20:341–351Google Scholar
  12. Lakatos G, Soproni K, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2009) A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and huamn infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures. Anim Cogn 12:621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Valsecchi P, Prato Previde E (2009) Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive task. Behav Proc 78:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2010) Comment on “differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants”. Science 329:142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human—given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3:13–22Google Scholar
  16. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of the animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9(2):81–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Anim Cogn 1:113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J, Csányi V (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog-human communication: an experimental analysis of’showing’ behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miklósi Á, Pongrácz P, Lakatos G, Topál J, Csányi V (2005) A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. J Comp Psychol 119:179–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morissette P, Ricard M, Decarie TG (1995) Joint visual attention and pointing in infancy: a longitudinal study of comprehension. Brit J Dev Psychol 13(2):163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riedel J, Buttelmann D, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use a physical marker to locate hidden food. Anim Cogn 9:27–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115:122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2002) Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) responsiveness to human pointing gestures. J Comp Psychol 116:27–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Topál J, Gergely Gy, Erdőhegyi Á, Csibra G, Miklósi Á (2009) Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325:1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Udell MA, Dorey NR, Wynne CD (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wynne CDL, Udell MAR, Lord KA (2008) Ontogeny’s impacts on human–dog communication. Anim Behav 76:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zimmermann F, Zemke F, Call J, Gómez JC (2009) Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) and bonobos (Pan paniscus) point to inform a human about the location of a tool. Anim Cogn 12:347–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Lakatos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Márta Gácsi
    • 1
  • József Topál
    • 2
  • Ádám Miklósi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EthologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute for Psychological ResearchHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations