Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 387–397 | Cite as

Sensing sociality in dogs: what may make an interactive robot social?

  • Gabriella Lakatos
  • Mariusz Janiak
  • Lukasz Malek
  • Robert Muszynski
  • Veronika Konok
  • Krzysztof Tchon
  • Á. Miklósi
Original Paper

Abstract

This study investigated whether dogs would engage in social interactions with an unfamiliar robot, utilize the communicative signals it provides and to examine whether the level of sociality shown by the robot affects the dogs’ performance. We hypothesized that dogs would react to the communicative signals of a robot more successfully if the robot showed interactive social behaviour in general (towards both humans and dogs) than if it behaved in a machinelike, asocial way. The experiment consisted of an interactive phase followed by a pointing session, both with a human and a robotic experimenter. In the interaction phase, dogs witnessed a 6-min interaction episode between the owner and a human experimenter and another 6-min interaction episode between the owner and the robot. Each interaction episode was followed by the pointing phase in which the human/robot experimenter indicated the location of hidden food by using pointing gestures (two-way choice test). The results showed that in the interaction phase, the dogs’ behaviour towards the robot was affected by the differential exposure. Dogs spent more time staying near the robot experimenter as compared to the human experimenter, with this difference being even more pronounced when the robot behaved socially. Similarly, dogs spent more time gazing at the head of the robot experimenter when the situation was social. Dogs achieved a significantly lower level of performance (finding the hidden food) with the pointing robot than with the pointing human; however, separate analysis of the robot sessions suggested that gestures of the socially behaving robot were easier for the dogs to comprehend than gestures of the asocially behaving robot. Thus, the level of sociality shown by the robot was not enough to elicit the same set of social behaviours from the dogs as was possible with humans, although sociality had a positive effect on dog–robot interactions.

Keywords

Dogs Robots Third-party interactions Pointing 

References

  1. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R (1999) 2.5-month-old infants’ reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. Cogn Psychol 39:116–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguiar A, Baillargeon R (2003) Perseverative responding in a violation-of-expectation task in 6.5-month-old infants. Cognition 88:277–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Csibra G, Gergely G (2009) Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn Sci 13(4):148–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fong T, Nourbakhsh I, Dautenhahn K (2003) A survey of socially interactive robots. Robot Auton Syst 42:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V (2004) Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim Cogn 7:144–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gácsi M, Győri B, Virányi Z, 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):e6584PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298:1634–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horn L, Virányi Z, 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones T, Lawson S, Mills D (2008) Interaction with a zoomorphic robot that exhibits canid mechanisms of behaviour. In: Robotics and automation, 2008. ICRA 2008. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Pasadena, pp 2128–2133Google Scholar
  11. Kaminski J, Schulz L, Tomasello M (2012) How dogs know when communication is intended for them. Dev Sci 15(2):222–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lakatos G (2010) Analysis of visual communication between human and dog. PhD Thesis. Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Lakatos G, Soproni K, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2009) A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures. Anim Cogn 12:621–631PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lakatos G, Gácsi M, Topál J, Miklósi Á (2012) Comprehension and utilisation of pointing gestures and gazing in dog–human communication in relatively complex situations. Anim Cogn 15:201–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Ferrario A, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E (2011) Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog. Anim Behav 81(6):1177–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McGregor PK (1993) Signalling in territorial systems: a context for individual identification, ranging and eavesdropping. Phil Trans R Soc B 340:237–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merola I, Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S (2012) Social referencing in dog-owner dyads? Anim Cogn 15(2):175–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of the animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Naderi S, Csányi V, Dóka A, Miklósi Á (2001) Cooperative interactions between blind persons and their dog. Appl Anim Behav Sci 74:59–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pfungst O (1911) Clever Hans (The horse of Mr. von Osten): a contribution to experimental animal and human psychology (Trans. C. L. Rahn). New York: Henry Holt. (Originally published in German, 1907)Google Scholar
  22. Pongrácz P, Miklósi A, Dóka A, Csányi V (2003) Successful application of video-projected human images for signaling to dogs. Ethology 109:809–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pongrácz P, Miklósi Á, Timár-Geng K, Csányi V (2004) Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. J Comp Psychol 118:375–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Prato-Previde E, Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P (2008) Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task. Anim Cogn 11:167–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS (2006) Social cognition in the domestic dog: behaviour of spectators towards participants in interspecific games. Anim Behav 72:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steels L (2001) Social learning and verbal communication with humanoid robots. Proceedings of the IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid RobotsGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Topál J, Gy Gergely, Erdőhegyi Á, Csibra G, Miklósi Á (2009) Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325:1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Proc 66:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang S, Baillargeon R, Brueckner L (2004) Young infants’ reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only. Cognition 93:167–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. West RE, Young RJ (2002) Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Anim Cogn 5:183–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wynne C, Udell MAR, Lord KA (2008) Ontogeny’s impacts on human–dog communication. Anim Behav 76(4):e1–e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Lakatos
    • 1
  • Mariusz Janiak
    • 2
  • Lukasz Malek
    • 2
  • Robert Muszynski
    • 2
  • Veronika Konok
    • 3
  • Krzysztof Tchon
    • 2
  • Á. Miklósi
    • 3
  1. 1.Comparative Ethology Research GroupHungarian Academy of Sciences, Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Computer Engineering, Control and RoboticsWroclaw University of TechnologyWroclawPoland
  3. 3.Department of EthologyEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations