Animal Cognition

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 427–434 | Cite as

Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?

  • Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini
  • Angelo Bisazza
  • Christian Agrillo
Original Paper

Abstract

In the last decade, visual illusions have been repeatedly used as a tool to compare visual perception among species. Several studies have investigated whether non-human primates perceive visual illusions in a human-like fashion, but little attention has been paid to other mammals, and sensitivity to visual illusions has been never investigated in the dog. Here, we studied whether domestic dogs perceive the Delboeuf illusion. In human and non-human primates, this illusion creates a misperception of item size as a function of its surrounding context. To examine this effect in dogs, we adapted the spontaneous preference paradigm recently used with chimpanzees. Subjects were presented with two plates containing food. In control trials, two different amounts of food were presented in two identical plates. In this circumstance, dogs were expected to select the larger amount. In test trials, equal food portion sizes were presented in two plates differing in size: if dogs perceived the illusion as primates do, they were expected to select the amount of food presented in the smaller plate. Dogs significantly discriminated the two alternatives in control trials, whereas their performance did not differ from chance in test trials with the illusory pattern. The fact that dogs do not seem to be susceptible to the Delboeuf illusion suggests a potential discontinuity in the perceptual biases affecting size judgments between primates and dogs.

Keywords

Visual illusions Comparative perception Canine Quantity discrimination 

References

  1. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A (2011) Number versus continuous quantity in numerosity judgments by fish. Cognition 119:281–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrillo C, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Tagliapietra C, Bisazza A (2012) Inter-specific differences in numerical abilities among teleost fish. Front Psychol 3:483PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Adriano A (2013) Individual differences in non-symbolic numerical estimation predict mathematical abilities but contradict ATOM. Behav Brain Funct 9:26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrillo C, Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014a) Do rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) perceive the Zöllner illusion? Psychon Bull Rev 21(4):986–994CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrillo C, Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014b) Do primates see the solitaire illusion differently? A comparative assessment of humans (Homo sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus mon- keys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). J Comp Psychol 128(4):402–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrillo C, Gori S, Beran MJ (2015) Do rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) perceive illusory motion? Anim Cogn 18:895–910CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker JM, Morath J, Rodzon KS, Jordan KE (2012) A shared system of representation governing quantity discrimination in canids. Front Psych 3:387Google Scholar
  8. Bánszegi O, Urrutia A, Szenczi P, Hudson R (2016) More or less: spontaneous quantity discrimination in the domestic cat. Anim Cogn 19(5):879–888CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Benhar E, Samuel D (1982) Visual illusions in the baboon (Papio anibis). Anim Learn Behav 10:115–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brannon EM, Lutz D, Cordes S (2006) The development of area discrimination and its implications for number representation in infancy. Dev Sci 9:F59–F64CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Bravo M, Blake R, Morrison S (1988) Cats see subjective contours. Vis Res 28:861–865CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Byosiere SE, Feng LC, Woodhead JK, Rutter NJ, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2016) Visual perception in domestic dogs: susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus– Titchener and Delboeuf illusions. Anim Cogn. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1067-1
  13. Davis B, Payne CR, Bui M (2016) Making small food units seem regular: how larger table size reduces calories to be consumed. J Ass Consum Res 1(1):115–124Google Scholar
  14. Dominy NJ, Lucas PW (2001) Ecological importance of trichromatic vision to primates. Nature 410:363–366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fagnani J, Barrera G, Carballo F, Bentosela M (2016) Is previous experience important for inhibitory control? A comparison between shelter and pet dogs in A-not-B and cylinder tasks. Anim Cogn 19:1165–1172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fujita K, Matsuzawa T (1990) Delayed figure reconstruction by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens). J Comp Psychol 104:345–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guo K, Meints K, Hall C, Hall S, Mills D (2009) Left gaze bias in humans, rhesus monkeys and domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 12:409–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hopkins WD (1997) Hemispheric specialization for local and global processing of hierarchical visual stimuli in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Neuropsychologia 35:343–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hopkins WD, Washburn DA (2002) Matching visual stimuli on the basis of global and local features by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Anim Cogn 5:27–31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Horowitz A, Hecht J, Dedrick A (2013) Smelling more or less: investigating the olfactory experience of the domestic dog. Learn Motiv 44(4):207–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunt S, Low J, Burns K (2008) Adaptive numerical competency in a food-hoarding songbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2373–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kanizsa G, Renzi P, Conte S, Compostela C, Guerani L (1993) Amodal completion in mouse vision. Perception 22:713–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley LA, Endler JA (2012) Illusions promote mating success in great bowerbirds. Science 335:335–338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelley LA, Kelley JL (2014) Animal visual illusion and confusion: the importance of a perceptual perspective. Behav Ecol 25:450–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimchi R (1992) Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. Psychol Bull 112:24–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwok RM, Braddick OJ (2003) When does the Titchener Circles illusion exert an effect on grasping? Two- and three-dimensional targets. Neuropsychologia 41:932–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakens D (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol 4:863CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamb TD, Collin SP, Pugh EN Jr (2007) Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup. Nat Rev Neurosci 8:960–976CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Lucon-Xiccato T, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Agrillo C, Bisazza A (2015) Guppies discriminate between two quantities of food items but prioritize item size over total amount. Anim Behav 107:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Masland RH, Martin PR (2007) The unsolved mystery of vision. Curr Biol 17:R577–R582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Miletto Petrazzini ME, Wynne CD (2016) What counts for dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) in a quantity discrimination task? Behav Proc 122:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Navon D (1977) Forest before trees: the precedence of global features in visual perception. Cogn Psych 9:353–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neitz J, Geist T, Jacobs G (1989) Color vision in the dog. Visual Neurosci 3:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parrish AE, Beran MJ (2014) When less is more: like humans, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) misperceive food amounts based on plate size. Anim Cogn 17:427–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Parrish AE, Agrillo C, Perdue B, Beran MJ (2016) The elusive illusion: do children (Homo sapiens) and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) see the solitaire illusion? J Child Exp Psychol 142:83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piffer L, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Agrillo C (2013) Large number discrimination in newborn fish. PLoS ONE 8(4):e62466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitteri E, Mongillo P, Carnier P, Marinelli L (2014) Hierarchical stimulus processing by dogs. Anim Cogn 17:869–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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 13:525–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Range F, Aust U, Steurer M, Huber L (2008) Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 11(2):339–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Range F, Jenikejew J, Schröder I, Virányi Z (2014) Difference in quantity discrimination in dogs and wolves. Front Psychol 5:1299CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose D, Bressan P (2002) Going round in circles: shape effects in the Ebbinghaus illusion. Spat Vis 15:191–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stancher G, Rugani R, Regolin L, Vallortigara G (2015) Numerical discrimination by frogs (Bombina orientalis). Anim Cogn 18:219–229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Suganuma E, Pessoa VF, Monge-Fuentes V, Castro BM, Tavares MCH (2007) Perception of the Müller-Lyer illusion in capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Behav Brain Res 182:67–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL (2008) Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Anim Behav 76:1767–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Uller C, Jaeger R, Guidry G, Martin C (2003) Salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) go for more: rudiments of number in an amphibian. Anim Cogn 6(2):105–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Ittersum K, Wansink B (2007) Do children really prefer large portions? Visual illusions bias their estimates and intake. J Am Diet Assoc 107:1107–1110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J (2005) Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 13:93–100CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Ward C, Smuts BB (2007) Quantity-based judgments in the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris). Anim Cogn 10:71–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. West RE, Young RJ (2002) Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? Anim Cogn 5:183–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini
    • 1
  • Angelo Bisazza
    • 1
  • Christian Agrillo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations