Animal Cognition

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 651–660 | Cite as

The effect of experience and of dots’ density and duration on the detection of coherent motion in dogs

  • Orsolya Kanizsár
  • Paolo MongilloEmail author
  • Luca Battaglini
  • Gianluca Campana
  • Miina Lõoke
  • Lieta Marinelli
Original Paper


Knowledge about the mechanisms underlying canine vision is far from being exhaustive, especially that concerning post-retinal elaboration. One aspect that has received little attention is motion perception, and in spite of the common belief that dogs are extremely apt at detecting moving stimuli, there is no scientific support for such an assumption. In fact, we recently showed that dogs have higher thresholds than humans for coherent motion detection (Kanizsar et al. in Sci Rep UK 7:11259, 2017). This term refers to the ability of the visual system to perceive several units moving in the same direction, as one coherently moving global unit. Coherent motion perception is commonly investigated using random dot displays, containing variable proportions of coherently moving dots. Here, we investigated the relative contribution of local and global integration mechanisms for coherent motion perception, and changes in detection thresholds as a result of repeated exposure to the experimental stimuli. Dogs who had been involved in the previous study were given a conditioned discrimination task, in which we systematically manipulated dot density and duration and, eventually, re-assessed our subjects’ threshold after extensive exposure to the stimuli. Decreasing dot duration impacted on dogs’ accuracy in detecting coherent motion only at very low duration values, revealing the efficacy of local integration mechanisms. Density impacted on dogs’ accuracy in a linear fashion, indicating less efficient global integration. There was limited evidence of improvement in the re-assessment but, with an average threshold at re-assessment of 29%, dogs’ ability to detect coherent motion remains much poorer than that of humans.


Coherent motion Dot density Dot lifetime Perceptual learning Dog 



We are very grateful to the student Giulia Madumali Zotti for helping with the experiments and to Dr. Carlo Poltronieri for his technical assistance. The study was funded by the University of Padova (to LM, 2016 - prot. DOR1673431). Dr. Orsolya Kanizár was supported by a PhD grant funded by the University of Padova.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

None of the authors of this paper has any financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations which might inappropriately influence or bias its content.

Human and animal rights

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Supplementary material

10071_2018_1200_MOESM1_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 14 KB)


  1. Aguirre GK, Komáromy AM, Cideciyan AV, Brainard DH, Aleman TS, Roman AJ, Avants BB, Gee JC, Korczykowski M, Hauswirth WW, Acland GM (2007) Canine and human visual cortex intact and responsive despite early retinal blindness from RPE65 mutation. PLoS Med 4:e230. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Albuquerque N, Guo K, Wilkinson A, Savalli C, Otta E, Mills D (2016) Dogs recognize dog and human emotions. Biol Lett 12: 20150883. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertenthal BI, Pinto J (1994) Global processing of biological motions. Psychol Sci 5:221–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bischof WF, Reid SL, Wylie DR, Spetch ML (1999) Perception of coherent motion in random dot displays by pigeons and humans. Percept Psychophys 61:1089–1101. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanke O, Brooks A, Mercier M, Spinelli L, Adriani M, Lavanchy L, Safran AB, Landis T (2007) Distinct mechanisms of form-from-motion perception in human extrastriate cortex. Neuropsychol 45:644–653. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braddick O (1993) Segmentation vs integration in visual motion processing. Trends Neorosci 16:263–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainard DH (1997) The psychophysics toolbox. Spat Vis 10:433–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Britten KH, Shadlen MN, Newsome WT, Movshon J (1992) The analysis of visual motion: a comparison of neuronal and psychophysical performance. J Neurosci 12:4745–4765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Byosiere SE, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2017a) What do dogs (Canis familiaris) see? A review of vision in dogs and implications for cognition research. Psychon Bull Rev. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byosiere SE, Feng LC, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2017b) Relational concept learning in domestic dogs: Performance on a two-choice size discrimination task generalises to novel stimuli. Behav Process 145:93–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Djavadian RL, Harutiunian-Kozak BA (1987) Retinotopic organization of the lateral suprasylvian area of the cat. Acta Neurobiol Exp 43:251–262Google Scholar
  12. Dosher BA, Lu ZL (2005) Perceptual learning in clear displays optimizes perceptual expertise: Learning the limiting process. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:5286–5290. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglas RM, Neve A, Quittenbaum JP, Alam NM, Prusky GT (2006) Perception of visual motion coherence by rats and mice. Vis Res 46:2842–2847. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahle M, Henkle-Fahle S (1996) Interobserver variance in perceptual performance and learning. Invest Ophth Vis Sci 37:869–877Google Scholar
  15. 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 7:144–153. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gizzi MS, Katz E, Movshon JA (1990) Spatial and temporal analysis by neurons in the representation of the central visual field in the cat’s lateral suprasylvian visual cortex. Vis Neurosci 5:463–468. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Humphrey AL, Saul AB (2002) The emergence of direction selectivity in cat primary visual cortex. In: Payne B, Peters A (eds) The cat primary visual cortex. Academic Press, London, pp 343–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huxlin KR, Pasternak T (2004) Training-induced recovery of visual motion perception after extrastriate cortical damage in the adult cat. Cereb Cortex 14:81–90. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaminski J, Nitzschner M (2013) Do dogs get the point? A review of dog–human communication ability. Learn Motiv 44:294–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanizsar O, Mongillo P, Battaglini L, Campagna G, Marinelli L (2017) Dogs are not better than humans at detecting coherent motion. Sci Rep UK 7:11259. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgram NW, Head E, Weiner E, Thomas E (1994) Cognitive functions and aging in the dog: acquisition of nonspatial visual tasks. Behav Neorosci 108:57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller PE, Murphy CJ (1995) Vision in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 15:1623–1634Google Scholar
  23. Mongillo P, Pitteri E, Sambugaro P, Carnier P, Marinelli L (2017a) Global bias reliability in dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 20:257–265. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mongillo P, Scandurra A, Kramer RSS, Marinelli L (2017b) Recognition of human faces by dogs (Canis familiaris) requires visibility of head contour. Anim Cogn 20:881–890. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nagasawa M, Murai K, Mogi K, Kikusui T (2011) Dogs can discriminate human smiling faces from blank expressions. Anim Cogn 14:525–533. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Newsome WT, Pare BT (1988) A selective impairment of motion perception following lesions of the middle temporal visual area (MT). J Neurosci 8:2201–2211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Pelli DG (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10:437–442. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Pitteri E, Mongillo P, Carnier P, Marinelli L (2014a) Hierarchical stimulus processing by dogs (Canis familiaris). Anim Cogn 17:869–877. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitteri E, Mongillo P, Carnier P, Marinelli L, Huber L (2014b) Part-based and configural processing of owner’s face in dogs. PLoS One 9:e108176. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Prins N, Kingdom FAA (2009) Palamedes: matlab routines for analyzing psychophysical data. Accessed 12 Sept 2017
  31. Rudolph KK, Pasternak T (1996) Lesions in cat lateral suprasylvian cortex affect the perception of complex motion. Cereb Cortex 6:814–822. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rust NC, Mante V, Simoncelli EP, Movshon JA (2006) How MT cells analyze the motion of visual patterns. Nat Neurosci 9:1421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sagi D (2011) Perceptual learning in vision research. Vis Res 51:1552–1566. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Snowden RJ, Kavanagh E (2006) Motion perception in the ageing visual system: minimum motion, motion coherence, and speed discrimination thresholds. Perception 35:9–24. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Talcott JB, Hansen PC, Assoku EL, Stein JF (2000) Visual motion sensitivity in dyslexia: evidence for temporal and energy integration deficits. Neuropsychologia 38:935–943. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Thompson B, Liu Z (2006) Learning motion discrimination with suppressed and un-suppressed MT. Vis Res 46:2110–2121. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav Process 66:161–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watanabe T, Nanez JE, Sasaki Y (2001) Perceptual learning without perception. Nature 413:844–847. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiffen M, Mauck B, Dehnhardt G, Hanke FD (2014) Sensitivity of a harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) to coherent visual motion in random dot displays. Springerplus 3:688. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Williams D, Brannan J (1994) Spatial integration of local motion signals. In: Smith A, Snowden R (eds) Visual detection of motion. Academic Press, London, pp 291–303Google Scholar
  41. Wurtz RH, Kandel ER (2000) Perception of motion, depth and form. In: Kandel ER, Schwarts JH, Jessel TM (eds) Principles of neural science, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 548–571Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied Ethology, Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food ScienceUniversity of PaduaLegnaroItaly
  2. 2.Department of General PsychologyUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Ecology and Earth SciencesUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations