Animal Cognition

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 701–713 | Cite as

Juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) use human-given cues in an object choice task

  • Christian Nawroth
  • Mirjam Ebersbach
  • Eberhard von Borell
Original Paper

Abstract

Research on the comprehension of human-given cues by domesticated as well as non-domesticated species has received considerable attention over the last decade. While several species seem to be capable of utilizing these cues, former work with domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) has shown inconclusive results. In this study, we investigated the use of human-given cues in an object choice task by young domestic pigs (N = 17; 7 weeks of age) who had very limited human contact prior to the experiments. Subjects had to choose between two bowls of which only one was baited with a reward. Over the course of five experiments, pigs were able to use proximal and, with some constraints, also distal pointing cues presented in both a dynamic-sustained and in a momentary manner. When the experimenter was pointing from the incorrect bowl towards the correct one, most of the subjects had problems solving the task—indicating that some form of stimulus/local enhancement affected pigs’ decision making. Interestingly, pigs were able to utilize the body and head orientation of a human experimenter to locate the hidden reward but failed to co-orient when head or body orientation of the experimenter was directed into distant space with no bowls present. Control trials ruled out the possibility that other factors (e.g. odour cues) affected subjects’ choice behaviour. Learning during experiments played a minor role and only occurred in three out of twelve test conditions. We conclude that domestic pigs, even at a very young age, are skilful in utilizing various human-given cues in an object choice task—raising the question whether pigs only used stimulus/local enhancement and associative learning processes or whether they were able to comprehend the communicative nature of at least some of these cues.

Keywords

Domestic pig Social cognition Object choice Human-given cues Human–animal interaction 

Supplementary material

10071_2013_702_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. Agnetta B, Hare B, Tomasello M (2000) Cues to food location that domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different ages do and do not use. Anim Cogn 3(2):107–112. doi:10.1007/s100710000070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albiach-Serrano A, Bräuer J, Cacchione T, Zickert N, Amici F (2012) The effect of domestication and ontogeny in swine cognition (Sus scrofa scrofa and S. s. domestica). Appl Anim Behav Sci 141(1–2):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Broom DM, Sena H, Moynihan KL (2009) Pigs learn what a mirror image represents and use it to obtain information. Anim Behav 78(5):1037–1041. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clutton-Brock J (1995) Origins of the dog: domestication and early history. In: Serpell JA (ed) The domestic dog: its evolution, behaviour and interaction with people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 7–20Google Scholar
  5. Giret N, Miklósi Á, Kreutzer M, Bovet D (2009) Use of experimenter-given cues by African gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus). Anim Cogn 12(1):1–10. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0163-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? T Cogn Sci 9(9):439–444CrossRefGoogle 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. Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW (2000) Social tactics of pigs in a competitive foraging task: the ‘informed forager’ paradigm. Anim Behav 59(3):569–576. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1322 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW (2001) Behaviour of domestic pigs in a visual perspective taking task. Behaviour 138:1337–1354. doi:10.1163/156853901317367627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Held S, Mendl M, Devereux C, Byrne RW (2002) Foraging pigs alter their behaviour in response to exploitation. Anim Behav 64:157–166. doi:10.1006/anbe 2002.3044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hernádi A, Kis A, Turcsán B, Topál J (2012) Man’s underground best friend: domestic ferrets, unlike the wild forms, show evidence of dog-like social-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE 7(8):e43267. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043267 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaminski J, Nitzschner M (2013) Do dogs get the point? A review of dog–human communication ability. Learn Behav. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2013.05.001 Google Scholar
  13. Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2005) Domestic goats, Capra hircus, follow gaze direction and use social cues in an object choice task. Anim Behav 69(1):11–18. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maros K, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á (2008) Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 11(3):457–466. doi:10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McKinley J, Sambrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogn 3(1):13–22. doi:10.1007/s100710050046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McLeman MA, Mendl M, Jones RB, White R, Wathes CM (2005) Discrimination of conspecifics by juvenile domestic pigs, Sus scrofa. Anim Behav 70(2):451–461. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mech LD (2007) Possible use of foresight, understanding, and planning by wolves hunting muskoxen. Arctic 60:145–149Google Scholar
  18. Mendl M, Randle K, Pope S (2002) Young female pigs can discriminate individual differences in odours from conspecific urine. Anim Behav 64(1):97–101. doi:10.1006/anbe2002.3040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miklósi A, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9(2):81–93. doi:10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miklósi Á, Pongracz P, Lakatos G, Topal J, Csanyi 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(2):179–186. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mulcahy NJ, Call J (2009) The performance of bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in two versions of an object-choice task. J Comp Psychol 123(3):304–309. doi:10.1037/a0016222 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mulcahy NJ, Hedge V (2012) Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task? Anim Behav 83(2):313–321. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muro C, Escobedo R, Spector L, Coppinger RP (2011) Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations. Behav Process 88:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nawroth C, Ebersbach M, von Borell E (2013) Are juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) sensitive to the attentive states of humans? The impact of impulsivity on choice behaviour. Behav Process 96:53–58. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Proops L, Walton M, McComb K (2010) The use of human-given cues by domestic horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Anim Behav 79(6):1205–1209. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Range F, Virányi Z (2011) Development of Gaze Following Abilities in Wolves (Canis Lupus). PLoS ONE 6:e16888PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 75(3):1003–1014. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosati AG, Hare B (2009) Looking past the model species: diversity in gaze-following skills across primates. Curr Opin Neurobiol 19(1):45–51. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2009.03.002 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheumann M, Call J (2004) The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus). Anim Cogn 7(4):224–230. doi:10.1007/s10071-004-0216-0 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2007) Gaze following in common ravens, Corvus corax: ontogeny and habituation. Anim Behav 74(4):769–778. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.08.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schloegl C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T (2008) Do common ravens (Corvus corax) rely on human or conspecific gaze cues to detect hidden food? Anim Cogn 11(2):231–241. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0105-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt J, Scheid C, Kotrschal K, Bugnyar T, Schloegl C (2011) Gaze direction: a cue for hidden food in rooks (Corvus frugilegus)? Behav Process 88(2):88–93. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2011.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Soproni K, Miklósi Á, Topál J, Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 115(2):122–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tomasello M, Call J, Hare B (1998) Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Anim Behav 55(4):1063–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76(6):1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Umberto A (2007) Pigs and humans. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. doi:10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilkinson A, Mandl I, Bugnyar T, Huber L (2010) Gaze following in the red-footed tortoise (Geochelone carbonaria). Anim Cogn 13(5):765–769. doi:10.1007/s10071-010-0320-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wood-Gush DGM, Jensen P, Algers B (1990) Behaviour of pigs in a novel semi-natural environment. Biol Behav 15:62–73Google Scholar
  40. Zonderland JJ, Cornelissen L, Wolthuis-Fillerup M, Spoolder HAM (2008) Visual acuity of pigs at different light intensities. Appl Anim Behav Sci 111(1–2):28–37. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2007.05.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Nawroth
    • 1
  • Mirjam Ebersbach
    • 2
  • Eberhard von Borell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Husbandry and Ecology, Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional SciencesMartin-Luther-UniversityHalleGermany
  2. 2.Department of Developmental Psychology, Institute of PsychologyUniversity of KasselKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations