Abstract
Physical reasoning appears central to understanding how the world works, suggesting adaptive function across the animal kingdom. However, conclusive evidence for inferential reasoning about physical objects is limited to primates. We systematically tested a central feature—understanding of solidity—in domestic dogs, by adapting a validated procedure (the shelf task) previously used to test children and non-human primates. Dogs watched a treat dropped into an apparatus with a shelf either present (treat landing on the shelf) or absent (treat landing on the bottom surface) and chose where to search for it (above or below the shelf). Across four studies (n = 64), we manipulated visual access to the treat trajectory and apparatus interior. Dogs correctly inferred the location of treats using physical cues when the shelf was present (Study 1), and learned rapidly when visual cues of continuity were limited (Study 2), and when the shelf was absent (Study 3). Dogs were at chance when the apparatus was fully occluded, and the presence and absence of the shelf varied across trials within subjects, and showed no evidence of learning (Study 4). The findings of these four studies suggest that dogs may be able to make some inferences using solidity and continuity and do not exhibit proximity or gravity biases. However, dogs did not always search correctly from Trial 1, and failed to search correctly when the rewarded location varied within-subjects, suggesting a role for learning, and possible limits to their ability to make inferences about physical objects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We recognize that testing performance on Trial 1 is often considered the most stringent assessment of inferential ability (though see e.g., Povinelli and Henley (2020) for a recent argument against privileging Trial 1 data), resource limitations did not permit collecting a sample large enough to power first trial analyses and thus we elected to use repeated trials in order to increase power with a conventional sample size. For instance, to detect at least 70% correct performance at 80% power with α = 0.05 on Trial 1 alone, a minimum of 47 dogs per study would be required, instead of the current 16 dogs per study.
References
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 Animal Behav Sci 141(1–2):25–35
Andrews K (2020) How to study animal minds (elements in the philosophy of biology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Baillargeon R (2002) The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: a summary in eight lessons. Blackwell Handb Child Cogn Dev 1:46–83
Baillargeon R, Graber M (1987) Where’s the rabbit? 5.5-month-old infants’ representation of the height of a hidden object. Cogn Dev 2(4):375–392
Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67(1):1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bensky MK, Gosling SD, Sinn DL (2013) The world from a dog’s point of view: a review and synthesis of dog cognition research. Adv Study Behav 45:209–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407186-5.00005-7
Bräuer J, Belger J (2018) A ball is not a Kong: Odor representation and search behavior in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) of different education. J Comp Psychol 132(2):189–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000115
Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol 120(1):38–47
Byosiere S-E, Feng LC, Woodhead JK, Rutter NJ, Chouinard PA, Howell TJ, Bennett PC (2017) Visual perception in domestic dogs: susceptibility to the Ebbinghaus-Titchener and Delboeuf illusions. Anim Cogn 20(3):435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-1067-1
Cacchione T, Burkart JM (2012) Dissociation between seeing and acting: Insights from common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Behav Proc 89(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2011.10.010
Cacchione T, Rakoczy H (2017) Comparative metaphysics: thinking about objects in space and time. In: Call J, Burghardt GM, Pepperberg IM, Snowdon CT, Zentall T (eds.) APA handbook of comparative psychology: Perception, learning, and cognition. American Psychological Association, Washington D.C, pp 579–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000012-026
Cacchione T, Call J, Zingg R (2009) Gravity and solidity in four great ape species (Gorilla gorilla, Pongo pygmaeus, Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus): vertical and horizontal variations of the table task. J Comp Psychol 123(2):168–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013580
Carey S, Spelke E (1996) Science and core knowledge. Philos Sci 63(4):515–533
Espinosa J, Dong L, Buchsbaum D (2021) Domestic dogs’ gaze and behavior in 2-alternative choice tasks. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/pt3vh
Fiset S, Gagnon S, Beaulieu C (2000) Spatial encoding of hidden objects in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol 114(4):315–324
Gadbois S, Reeve C (2014) Canine olfaction: scent, sign, and situation. Domestic dog cognition and behavior. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3–29
Gopnik A, Meltzoff A (1987) The development of categorization in the second year and its relation to other cognitive and linguistic developments. Child Dev 58(6):1523–1531. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130692
Haemmerli S, Thill C, Amici F, Cacchione T (2018) Domestic horses (Equus ferus caballus) fail to intuitively reason about object properties like solidity and weight. Anim Cogn 21(3):441–446
Hood BM (1995) Gravity rules for 2-to 4-year olds? Cogn Dev 10(4):577–598
Hood BM, Hauser MD, Anderson L, Santos LR (1999) Gravity biases in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 2:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00051
Hood B, Carey S, Prasada S (2000) Predicting the outcomes of physical events: two-year-olds fail to reveal knowledge of solidity and support. Child Dev 71(6):1540–1554
Hood B, Cole-Davies V, Dias M (2003) Looking and search measures of object knowledge in preschool children. Dev Psychol 39(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.61
Keen R (2003) Representation of objects and events: Why do infants look so smart and toddlers look so dumb? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12(3):79–83
Kubricht JR, Holyoak KJ, Lu H (2017) Intuitive physics: current research and controversies. Trends Cogn Sci 21(10):749–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.06.002
Kundey SM, De Los Reyes A, Taglang C, Baruch A, German R (2010) Domesticated dogs’(Canis familiaris) use of the solidity principle. Anim Cogn 13(3):497–505
Lampe M, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Virányi Z (2017) The effects of domestication and ontogeny on cognition in dogs and wolves. Sci Rep 7(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12055-6
Mongillo P, Araujo JA, Pitteri E, Carnier P, Adamelli S, Regolin L, Marinelli L (2013) Spatial reversal learning is impaired by age in pet dogs. Age 35(6):2273–2282
Müller CA, Riemer S, Range F, Huber L (2014) Dogs’ use of the solidity principle: revisited. Anim Cogn 17(3):821–825
Osthaus B, Slater AM, Lea SEG (2003) Can dogs defy gravity? A comparison with the human infant and a non-human primate. Dev Sci 6(5):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00306
Osthaus B, Lea SE, Slater AM (2005) Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task. Anim Cogn 8(1):37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0230-2
Pattison KF, Miller HC, Rayburn-Reeves R, Zentall T (2010) The case of the disappearing bone: dogs’ understanding of the physical properties of objects. Behav Proc 85(3):278–282
Plotnik JM, Brubaker DL, Dale R, Tiller LN, Mumby HS, Clayton NS (2019) Elephants have a nose for quantity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116(25):12566–12571
Povinelli DJ, H enley T (2020) More rope tricks reveal why more task variants will never lead to strong inferences about higher-order causal reasoning in chimpanzees. Anim Behav Cogn 7(3):392–418. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.07.03.08.2020
Range F, Hentrup M, Virányi Z (2011) Dogs are able to solve a means-end task. Anim Cogn 14(4):575–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0394-5
Range F, Möslinger H, Virányi Z (2012) Domestication has not affected the understanding of means-end connections in dogs. Anim Cogn 15(4):597–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0488-8
Riemer S, Müller C, Range F, Huber L (2014) Dogs (Canis familiaris) can learn to attend to connectivity in string pulling tasks. J Comp Psychol 128(1):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033202
Rosner B (2015) Fundamentals of biostatistics. Nelson Education, Toronto
Santos LR (2004) “Core Knowledges”: a dissociation between spatiotemporal knowledge and contact-mechanics in a non-human primate? Dev Sci 7(2):167–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00335.x
Santos LR, Hauser MD (2002) A non-human primate’s understanding of solidity: dissociations between seeing and acting. Dev Sci 5(2):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.t01-1-00216
Santos LR, Seelig D, Hauser MD (2006) Cotton-top tamarins’ (Saguinus oedipus) expectations about occluded objects: a dissociation between looking and reaching tasks. Infancy 9(2):141–165. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0902_4
Seed AM, Call J, Emery NJ, Clayton NS (2009) Chimpanzees solve the trap problem when the confound of tool-use is removed. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 35(1):23–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012925
Southgate V, Gomez JC (2006) Searching beneath the shelf in macaque monkeys: evidence for a gravity bias or a foraging bias? J Comp Psychol 120(3):314–321
Spelke ES (1988) The origins of physical knowledge. In: Weiskrantz L (ed) A Fyssen foundation symposium. Thought without language. Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 168–184
Spelke E (1994) Initial knowledge: six suggestions. Cognition 50(1–3):431–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90039-6
Spelke ES (2000) Core knowledge. Am Psychol 55(11):1233–1243
Spelke ES (2003) What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. Language in mind: advances in the study of language and thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 277–311
Spelke ES, Kinzler KD (2007) Core knowledge. Dev Sci 10(1):89–96
Spelke ES, Breinlinger K, Macomber J, Jacobson K (1992) Origins of knowledge. Psychol Rev 99(4):605–632
Spelke ES, Lee SA, Izard V (2010) Beyond core knowledge: natural geometry. Cogn Sci 34(5):863–884. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01110.x
Tecwyn EC, Buchsbaum D (2018) Hood’s gravity rules. In: Vonk J, Shackleford T (eds) Encyclopedia of animal cognition and behavior. Springer, Berlin
Tecwyn EC, Buchsbaum D (2019) What factors really influence domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) search for an item dropped down a diagonal tube? The tubes task revisited. J Comp Psychol 133(1):4–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000145
Valenza E, Leo I, Gava L, Simion F (2006) Perceptual completion in newborn human infants. Child Dev 77(6):1810–1821
Völter CJ, Karl S, Huber L (2020) Dogs accurately track a moving object on a screen and anticipate its destination. Sci Rep 10(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-72506-5
Völter C, Huber L (2021) Expectancy violations about physical properties of animated objects in dogs. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3pr9z
Wellman HM, Gelman SA (1992) Cognitive development: foundational theories of core domains. Annu Rev Psychol 43(1):337–375
Wimmer H, Perner J (1983) Beliefs about beliefs: representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13(1):103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5
Funding
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Grand number (2016-05552).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Espinosa, J., Tecwyn, E.C. & Buchsbaum, D. Searching high and low: domestic dogs’ understanding of solidity. Anim Cogn 25, 555–570 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01568-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01568-3