Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris)

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10(1):17–21

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 267–281

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bates D, Maechler M (2010) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-35

  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):307–319

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bovet D (1999) Capacités d’abstraction et de catégorisation: etude comparative chez le babouin et l’enfant. Dissertation. University of Aix-marseille, France

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown SD, Dooling RJ (1992) Perception of conspecific faces by budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus) I. Natural faces. J Comp Psychol 106:203–216

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bruce C (1982) Face recognition by monkeys: absence of an inversion effect. Neuropsychology 20:515–521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Buswell GT (1935) How people look at pictures: a study of the psychology of perception in art. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campan R, Scapini F (2002) Ethologie: approche systémique du comportement. De Boeck Université, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cerella J (1979) Visual classes and natural categories in the pigeon. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 5(1):68–77

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 6–20

    Google Scholar 

  12. Coile DC, Pollitz CH, Smith JC (1989) Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiol Behav 45(6):1087–1092

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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):198–204

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):e4441

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):279–290

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dahl CD, Wallraven C, Bülthoff HH, Logothetis NK (2009) Humans and macaques employ similar face-processing strategies. Curr Biol 19(6):509–513

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Denis B (2007) Génétique et sélection chez le chien, vol 2ème édition. PMCAC et SCC, Paris

    Google 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 73:107–113

    Article  Google 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):418–431

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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):e15175

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farah MJ, Wilson KD, Drain M, Tanaka JN (1998) What is “special” about face perception? Psychol Rev 105(3):482–498

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 67:491–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fujita K (1987) Species recognition by five macaques monkeys. Primates 28(3):353–366

    Article  Google 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):141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fujita K, Watanabe K (1995) Visual preference for closely related species by Sulawesi macaques. Am J Primatol 37(3):253–261

    Article  Google 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):849–860

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):59–87

    Article  Google 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):125–141

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):48–60

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hare B, Tomasello M (1999) Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. J Comp Psychol 113:173–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Harlow HF (1949) The formation of learning sets. Psychol Rev 56:51–65

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 6:610–613

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hemmer H (1990) Domestication: the decline of environmental appreciation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of stimulus control: a functional approach. Cogn 37(1–2):133–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacobs GH, Deegan JF, Crognale MA, Fenwick JA (1993) Photopigments of dogs and foxes and their implications for canid vision. Vis Neurosci 10:173–180

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 361:2109–2128

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):1665–1676

    Article  Google 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):19–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kendrick KM, Hinton MR, Atkins K, Haupt MA, Skinner JD (1998) Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature 395:229–230

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Kendrick KM, Leigh A, Peirce J (2001a) Behavioural and neural correlates of mental imagery in sheep using face recognition paradigms. Anim Welf 10:89–101

    Google 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):322–338

    Article  CAS  Google 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):1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Leopold DA, Rhodes G (2010) A comparative view of face perception. J Comp Psychol 124(3):233–251

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ligout S, Porter RH (2004) The role of visual cues in lambs’ discrimination between individual agemates. Behaviour 141(5):617–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ligout S, Keller M, Porter RH (2004) The role of olfactory cues in the discrimination of agemates by lambs. Anim Behav 68:785–792

    Article  Google 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 41–65

  47. Malpass RS, Kravitz J (1969) Recognition for faces of own and other race. J Personal Soc Psychol 13(4):330–334

    Article  CAS  Google 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, Vincennes

  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):3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Miklósi A (2007) Dog: behaviour, evolution, and cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  52. Morgan CL (1898) An introduction to comparative psychology. Walter Scott Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  53. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cogn 14(4):525–533

    Google Scholar 

  54. Neuhaus W, Regenfuss E (1967) Über die Sehschärfe des Haushundes bei verschiedenen Helligkeiten. Z Vgl Physiol 57(2):137–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ogura T (2011) Contrafreeloading and the value of control over visual stimuli in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata). Anim Cogn 14:427–431

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 11:467–474

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Parr LA, Dove T, Hopkins WD (1998) Why faces may be special: evidence of the inversion effect in chimpanzees. J Cogn Neurosci 10:615–622

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Pascalis O, Bachevalier J (1998) Face recognition in primates: a cross-species study. Behav Process 43:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Pascalis O, de Haan M, Nelson CA (2002) Is face processing species-specific during the first year of life? Science 296:1321–1323

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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):475–483

    Article  CAS  Google 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 187–215

    Google Scholar 

  62. Perrett DI, Rolls ET, Caan W (1982) Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex. Exp Brain Res 47:329–342

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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 29:245–258

    CAS  Google 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):2581–2600

    PubMed  Article  Google 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 175–203

    Google 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 134:463–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pretterer G, Bubna-Littitz H, Windischbauer G, Gabler C, Griebel U (2004) Brightness discrimination in the dog. J Vis 4:241–249

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Quinn PC, Eimas PD (1996) Perceptual cues that permit categorical differentiation of animal species by infants. J Exp Child Psychol 63(1):189–211

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. R Development Core Team (2010) A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria

    Google 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):525–533

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Range F, Viranyi Z, Huber L (2007a) Selective imitation in domestic dogs. Curr Biol 17:868–872

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Range F, Aust U, Steurer M, Huber L (2007b) Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 11(2):339–347

    PubMed  Article  Google 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):129–138

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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):175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Schrier AM (1984) Learning how to learn: the significance and current status of learning set formation. Primates 25(1):95–102

    Article  Google 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):183–195

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google 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):163–174

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Soto FA, Wasserman EA (2010) Error-driven learning in visual categorization and object recognition: a common-elements model. Psychol Rev 117:349–381

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Spence KW (1960) Behavior theory and Learning. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

  80. Sperling SE (1965) Reversal learning and resistance to extinction: a supplementary report. Psychol Bull 64(4):310–312

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Svartberg K, Forkman B (2002) Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris). Appl Anim Behav Sci 79(2):133–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sweller J (1973) The effect of task difficulty and criteria of learning on a subsequent reversal. Q J Exp Psychol 25(2):223–228

    Google 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 361:2155–2172

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Tibbetts EA (2002) Visual signals of individual identity in the wasp Polistes fuscatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1423–1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tinbergen N (1953) Social behaviour in animals with special references to vertebrates. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  86. Tsao DY, Freiwald WA, Tootell RBH, Livingstone MS (2006) A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells. Science 311:670–674

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Van der Velden J, Zheng Y, Patullo BW, Macmillan DL (2008) Crayfish recognize the faces of fight opponents. PLoS ONE 3(2):e1695

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Vaughan W (1988) Formation of equivalence sets in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 14(1):36–42

    Article  Google 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):161–172

    Article  Google 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):373–387

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Wayne RK, Ostrander EA (2007) Lessons learned from the dog genome. Trends Genet 23(11):557–567

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Yin RK (1969) Looking at upside-down faces. J Exp Psychol 81(1):141–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Yoshikubo S (1985) Species discrimination and concept formation by rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Primates 26:285–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Young SG, Hugenberg K, Bernstein MJ, Sacco DF (2009) Interracial contexts debilitate same-race face recognition. J Exp Soc Psychol 45(5):1123–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique Autier-Dérian.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Autier-Dérian, D., Deputte, B.L., Chalvet-Monfray, K. et al. Visual discrimination of species in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 16, 637–651 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0600-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Species discrimination
  • Categorization
  • 2D images
  • Dogs