Animal Cognition

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 637–651 | Cite as

Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris)

  • Dominique Autier-DérianEmail author
  • Bertrand L. Deputte
  • Karine Chalvet-Monfray
  • Marjorie Coulon
  • Luc Mounier
Original Paper


In most social interactions, an animal has to determine whether the other animal belongs to its own species. This perception may be visual and may involve several cognitive processes such as discrimination and categorization. Perceptual categorization is likely to be involved in species characterized by a great phenotypic diversity. As a consequence of intensive artificial selection, domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, present the largest phenotypic diversity among domestic mammals. The goal of our study was to determine whether dogs can discriminate any type of dog from other species and can group all dogs whatever their phenotypes within the same category. Nine pet dogs were successfully trained through instrumental conditioning using a clicker and food rewards to choose a rewarded image, S+, out of two images displayed on computer screens. The generalization step consisted in the presentation of a large sample of paired images of heads of dogs from different breeds and cross-breeds with those of other mammal species, included humans. A reversal phase followed the generalization step. Each of the nine subjects was able to group all the images of dogs within the same category. Thus, the dogs have the capacity of species discrimination despite their great phenotypic variability, based only on visual images of heads.


Species discrimination Categorization 2D images Dogs 



We thank Professor Charles T. Snowdon for his useful comments and careful editing on the manuscript. Thanks are also due to VetAgro-Sup which enabled our project to be carried out, to vet students Cindy Ribolzi and Florent Roques for their assistance in experimental procedure, to owners of our subjects who entrusted their dogs to us and to Royal Canin® for providing food rewards for dogs.


  1. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10(1):17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akaike H (1973) Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  3. Bates D, Maechler M (2010) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-35Google Scholar
  4. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hooff JARAM, de Vries HW (1997) Manifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 52(3):307–319Google Scholar
  5. Bovet D (1999) Capacités d’abstraction et de catégorisation: etude comparative chez le babouin et l’enfant. Dissertation. University of Aix-marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown SD, Dooling RJ (1992) Perception of conspecific faces by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) I. Natural faces. J Comp Psychol 106:203–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce C (1982) Face recognition by monkeys: absence of an inversion effect. Neuropsychology 20:515–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buswell GT (1935) How people look at pictures: a study of the psychology of perception in art. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Campan R, Scapini F (2002) Ethologie: approche systémique du comportement. De Boeck Université, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  10. Cerella J (1979) Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5(1):68–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clutton-Brock J (1996) Origin of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell J (ed) The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interaction with people. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 6–20Google Scholar
  12. Coile DC, Pollitz CH, Smith JC (1989) Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiol Behav 45(6):1087–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coulon M, Deputte BL, Heyman Y, Delatouche L, Richard C, Baudoin C (2007) Visual discrimination by heifers (Bos taurus) of their own species. J Comp Psychol 121(2):198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):e4441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coulon M, Baudoin C, Heyman Y, Deputte BL (2010) Cattle discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by using only head visual cues. Anim Cogn 14(2):279–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dahl CD, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH, Logothetis NK (2009) Humans and macaques employ similar face-processing strategies. Curr Biol 19(6):509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denis B (2007) Génétique et sélection chez le chien, vol 2ème édition. PMCAC et SCC, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Dufour V, Pascalis O, Petit O (2006) Face processing limitation to own species in primates: a comparative study in brown capuchins, Tonkean macaques and humans. Behav Process 73:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eimas PD, Quinn PC, Cowan P (1994) Development of exclusivity in perceptually based categories of young infants. J Exp Child Psychol 58(3):418–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faragó T, Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Huber L, Virányi Z, Range F (2010) Dogs’ expectation about signalers’ body size by virtue of their growls. PLoS ONE 5(12):e15175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Farah MJ, Wilson KD, Drain M, Tanaka JN (1998) What is “special” about face perception? Psychol Rev 105(3):482–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferreira G, Keller M, Saint-Dizier H, Perrin G, Lévy F (2004) Transfer between views of conspecific faces at different ages or in different orientations by sheep. Behav Process 67:491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fujita K (1987) Species recognition by five macaques monkeys. Primates 28(3):353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fujita K (1993) Development of visual preference for closely related species by infant and juvenile macaques with restricted social experience. Primates 34(2):141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fujita K, Watanabe K (1995) Visual preference for closely related species by Sulawesi macaques. Am J Primatol 37(3):253–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gaunet F, Deputte B (2011) Functionally referential and intentional communication in the domestic dog: effects of spatial and social contexts. Anim Cogn 14(6):849–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gheusi G, Bluthé R-M, Goodall G, Dantzer R (1994) Social and individual recognition in rodents: methodological aspects and neurobiological bases. Behav Process 33(1–2):59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ghosh N, Lea SEG, Noury M (2004) Transfer to intermediate forms following concept discrimination by pigeons: chimeras and morphs. J Exp Anal Behav 82(2):125–141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goto K, Lea SEG, Wills AJ, Milton F (2011) Interpreting the effects of image manipulation on picture perception in pigeons (Columba livia) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 125(1):48–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Harlow HF (1949) The formation of learning sets. Psychol Rev 56:51–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 6:610–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hemmer H (1990) Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cogn 37(1–2):133–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobs GH, Deegan JF, Crognale MA, Fenwick JA (1993) Photopigments of dogs and foxes and their implications for canid vision. Vis Neurosci 10:173–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kanwisher N, Yovel G (2006) The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:2109–2128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kendrick KM, Atkins K, Hinton MR, Broad KD, Fabre-Nys C, Keverne B (1995) Facial and vocal discrimination in sheep. Anim Behav 49(6):1665–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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(1):19–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kendrick KM, Hinton MR, Atkins K, Haupt MA, Skinner JD (1998) Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature 395:229–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kendrick KM, Leigh A, Peirce J (2001a) Behavioural and neural correlates of mental imagery in sheep using face recognition paradigms. Anim Welf 10:89–101Google Scholar
  41. Kendrick KM, Haupt MA, Hinton MR, Broad KD, Skinner JD (2001b) Sex differences in the influence of mothers on the sociosexual preferences of their offspring. Hormon Behav 40(2):322–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kerswell KJ, Butler KL, Bennett P, Hemsworth PH (2010) The relationships between morphological features and social signalling behaviours in juvenile dogs: the effect of early experience with dogs of different morphotypes. Behav Process 85(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leopold DA, Rhodes G (2010) A comparative view of face perception. J Comp Psychol 124(3):233–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ligout S, Porter RH (2004) The role of visual cues in lambs’ discrimination between individual agemates. Behaviour 141(5):617–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ligout S, Keller M, Porter RH (2004) The role of olfactory cues in the discrimination of agemates by lambs. Anim Behav 68:785–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lombardi CM, Delius JD (1990) Size invariance of pattern recognition in pigeons. Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn SM, Mumford DB (eds) Behavioral approaches to pattern recognition and concept formation. Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol 8. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 41–65Google Scholar
  47. Malpass RS, Kravitz J (1969) Recognition for faces of own and other race. J Personal Soc Psychol 13(4):330–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Megnin P (1897) Le chien et ses races. Tome I: Histoire du chien depuis les temps les plus reculés, Origine des races et classification. Bibliothèque de l’Eleveur, VincennesGoogle Scholar
  49. Meissner CA, Brigham JC (2001) Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Public Policy Law 7(1):3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miklósi A (2007) Dog: behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miller PE (2008) Structure and function of the eye. In: Maggs DJ, Miller PE, Ofri R (eds) Slatter’s fundamentals of veterinary opthalmology. Saunders Elsevier, St Louis, Missouri, pp 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morgan CL (1898) An introduction to comparative psychology. Walter Scott Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cogn 14(4):525–533Google Scholar
  54. Neuhaus W, Regenfuss E (1967) Über die Sehschärfe des Haushundes bei verschiedenen Helligkeiten. Z Vgl Physiol 57(2):137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ogura T (2011) Contrafreeloading and the value of control over visual stimuli in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Anim Cogn 14:427–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parr LA, Heintz M (2008) Discrimination of faces and houses by Rhesus monkeys: the role of stimulus expertise and rotation angle. Anim Cogn 11:467–474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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
  58. Pascalis O, Bachevalier J (1998) Face recognition in primates: a cross-species study. Behav Process 43:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pascalis O, de Haan M, Nelson CA (2002) Is face processing species-specific during the first year of life? Science 296:1321–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peirce JW, Leigh AE, Kendrick KM (2000) Configurational coding, familiarity and the right hemisphere advantage for face recognition in sheep. Neuropsychol 38(4):475–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perrett DI, Mistlin AJ (1990) Perception of facial characteristics by monkeys. In: Stebbins WC, Berkley MA (eds) Comparative perception: complex signals, vol 2. Wiley, New York, pp 187–215Google Scholar
  62. Perrett DI, Rolls ET, Caan W (1982) Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex. Exp Brain Res 47:329–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Perrett DI, Mistlin AJ, Chitty A, Smith PAJ, Potter DD, Broennimann R, Harries M (1988) Specialized face processing and hemispheric asymmetry in man and monkey: evidence from single unit and reaction time studies. Behav Process 29:245–258Google Scholar
  64. Pinsk MA, Arcaro M, Weiner KS, Kalkus JF, Inati SJ, Gross CG, Kastner S (2009) Neural representations of faces and body parts in macaque and human cortex: a comparative fMRI study. J Neurophysiol 101(5):2581–2600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Porter RH (1987) Kin recognition: functions and mediating mechanisms. In: Crawford C, Smith M, Krebs D (eds) Sociobiology and psychobiology: ideas, issues and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 175–203Google Scholar
  66. Porter RH, Nowak R, Orgeur P, Lévy F, Schaal B (1997) Twin/non-twin discrimination by lambs: an investigation of salient stimulus characteristics. Behaviour 134:463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pretterer G, Bubna-Littitz H, Windischbauer G, Gabler C, Griebel U (2004) Brightness discrimination in the dog. J Vis 4:241–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Quinn PC, Eimas PD (1996) Perceptual cues that permit categorical differentiation of animal species by infants. J Exp Child Psychol 63(1):189–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. R Development Core Team (2010) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  70. 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(3):525–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Range F, Viranyi Z, Huber L (2007a) Selective imitation in domestic dogs. Curr Biol 17:868–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Range F, Aust U, Steurer M, Huber L (2007b) Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 11(2):339–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Regodon S, Robina A, Franco A, Vivo JM, Lignereux Y (1991) Détermination radiologique et statistique des types morphologiques Crâniens chez le Chien: dolichocéphalic. Mésocéphalie et Brachycéphalie. Anat Histol Embryol 20(2):129–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rybarczyk P, Koba Y, Rushen J, Tanida H, de Passillé AM (2001) Can cows discriminate people by their faces? Appl Anim Behav Sci 74(3):175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schrier AM (1984) Learning how to learn: the significance and current status of learning set formation. Primates 25(1):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sherman SM, Wilson JR (1975) Behavioral and morphological evidence for binocular competition in the postnatal development of the dog’s visual system. J Comp Neurol 161(2):183–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Somppi S, Törnqvist H, Hänninen L, Krause C, Vainio O (2012) Dogs do look at images: eye tracking in canine cognition research. Anim Cogn 15(2):163–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Soto FA, Wasserman EA (2010) Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: a common-elements model. Psychol Rev 117:349–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spence KW (1960) Behavior theory and Learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  80. Sperling SE (1965) Reversal learning and resistance to extinction: a supplementary report. Psychol Bull 64(4):310–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Svartberg K, Forkman B (2002) Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 79(2):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sweller J (1973) The effect of task difficulty and criteria of learning on a subsequent reversal. Q J Exp Psychol 25(2):223–228Google Scholar
  83. Tate AJ, Fischer H, Leigh AE, Kendrick KM (2006) Behavioural and neurophysiological evidence for face identity and face emotion processing in animals. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:2155–2172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tibbetts EA (2002) Visual signals of individual identity in the wasp Polistes fuscatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1423–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tinbergen N (1953) Social behaviour in animals with special references to vertebrates. Methuen & Co. Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  86. Tsao DY, Freiwald WA, Tootell RBH, Livingstone MS (2006) A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science 311:670–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van der Velden J, Zheng Y, Patullo BW, Macmillan DL (2008) Crayfish recognize the faces of fight opponents. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1695PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vaughan W (1988) Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14(1):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Process 66(2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Virányi Z, Gácsi M, Kubinyi E, Topál J, Belényi B, Ujfalussy D, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 11(3):373–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wayne RK, Ostrander EA (2007) Lessons learned from the dog genome. Trends Genet 23(11):557–567PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81(1):141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yoshikubo S (1985) Species discrimination and concept formation by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates 26:285–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Young SG, Hugenberg K, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF (2009) Interracial contexts debilitate same-race face recognition. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(5):1123–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dominique Autier-Dérian
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Bertrand L. Deputte
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Karine Chalvet-Monfray
    • 2
    • 5
  • Marjorie Coulon
    • 6
    • 7
  • Luc Mounier
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.LEECVilletaneuseFrance
  2. 2.Université de LyonMarcy L’EtoileFrance
  3. 3.G.Re.C.C.C. Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’AlfortMaisons-AlfortFrance
  4. 4.Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d’AlfortMaisons-AlfortFrance
  5. 5.INRA, UR 346 Epidémiologie AnimaleSaint-Genès-ChampanelleFrance
  6. 6.INRA, UMR 1213 HerbivoresSaint-Genès-ChampanelleFrance
  7. 7.Clermont Université, VetAgro SupClermont-FerrandFrance

Personalised recommendations