Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Development of point following behaviors in shelter dogs

Abstract

Pet dogs are known to be responsive to human pointing gestures, but shelter dogs have repeatedly demonstrated poor abilities to follow human pointing, although they can be explicitly trained quickly. This study evaluated the time course in which shelter dogs learn to follow points without explicit training, when given typical interactions with humans. In a longitudinal evaluation, the development of point following was tracked in seven shelter dogs in a training program (enriched human exposure), seven dogs in a traditional shelter (control population), and evaluated once in pet dogs. Twice a week for 6 weeks, shelter dogs’ point-following performance was evaluated in 10 probe trials in which an experimenter pointed to one of two containers equidistant from the dog. To avoid direct training, dogs were given a treat for approaching and touching either container; although correct responses were recorded for touching the pointed-towards container within 30 s. Pet dogs were tested in only one session. All shelter dogs initially showed the expected poor performance. However, enriched shelter dogs receiving enriched human exposure showed significant improvements reaching an identical performance to pet dogs within 7 weeks. In comparison, shelter dogs under standard conditions showed an initial improvement, but performance reached asymptote close to chance levels and lower than that of enriched dogs or pet dogs. Together, these results suggest that enriched experiences with humans, typical of pet dogs, is sufficient for dogs to learn to follow points without explicit training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Barrera, G., Mustaca, A., & Bentosela, M. (2011). Communication between domestic dogs and humans: Effects of shelter housing upon the gaze to the human. Animal Cognition, 14(5), 727–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-0407-4

  2. Behne, T., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2005). One-year-olds comprehend the communicative intentions behind gestures in a hiding game. Developmental Science, 8(6), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00440.x

  3. Call, J., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Chimpanzee gaze following in an object-choice task. Animal Cognition, 1(2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050013

  4. Colbert-White, E. N., Tullis, A., Andresen, D. R., Parker, K. M., & Patterson, K. E. (2018). Can dogs use vocal intonation as a social referencing cue in an object choice task? Animal Cognition, 21(2), 253–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-018-1163-5

  5. Cunningham, C. L., & Ramos, M. F. (2014). Effect of training and familiarity on responsiveness to human cues in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 17(3), 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-013-0714-z

  6. D’Aniello, B., & Scandurra, A. (2016). Ontogenetic effects on gazing behaviour: A case study of kennel dogs (Labrador Retrievers) in the impossible task paradigm. Animal Cognition, 19(3), 565–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-016-0958-5

  7. D’Aniello, B., Scandurra, A., Prato-Previde, E., & Valsecchi, P. (2015). Gazing toward humans: A study on water rescue dogs using the impossible task paradigm. Behavioural Processes, 110, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.022

  8. D’Aniello, B., Alterisio, A., Scandurra, A., Petremolo, E., Iommelli, M. R., & Aria, M. (2017). What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Animal Cognition, 20(4), 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1098-2

  9. Dorey, N. R., Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). When do domestic dogs, Canis familiaris, start to understand human pointing? The role of ontogeny in the development of interspecies communication. Animal Behaviour, 79(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.032

  10. Duranton, C., Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2017). Do pet dogs (Canis familiaris) follow ostensive and non-ostensive human gaze to distant space and to objects? Royal Society Open Science, 4(7). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170349

  11. Gácsi, M., Kara, E., Belényi, B., Topál, J., & Miklósi, Á. (2009a). The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs. Animal Cognition, 12(3), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0208-6

  12. Gácsi, M., McGreevy, P., Edina, K., & Miklósi, Á. (2009b). Effects of selection for cooperation and attention in dogs. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 5(31). Retrieved from https://behavioralandbrainfunctions.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-9081-5-31

  13. Grassmann, S., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children follow pointing over words in interpreting acts of reference. Developmental Science, 13(1), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00871.x

  14. Hall, N. J., Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., Walsh, A. L., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2011). Megachiropteran bats (Pteropus) utilize human referential stimuli to locate hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 125(3), 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023680

  15. Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.003

  16. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298(5598), 1634–1636.

  17. Hare, B., Plyusnina, I., Ignacio, N., Schepina, O., Stepika, A., Wrangham, R., & Trut, L. (2005). Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Current Biology, 15(3), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040

  18. Hare, B., Rosati, A., Kaminski, J., Bräuer, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2010). The domestication hypothesis for dogs’ skills with human communication: A response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008). Animal Behaviour, 79(2), e1–e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.031

  19. Hodges, L. E., Özçalışkan, Ş., & Williamson, R. (2018). Type of iconicity influences children’s comprehension of gesture. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.08.009

  20. Hopkins, W. D., Russell, J., McIntyre, J., & Leavens, D. A. (2013). Are chimpanzees really so poor at understanding imperative pointing? Some new data and an alternative view of canine and ape social cognition. PLOS ONE, 8(11), e79338. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079338

  21. 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. Animal Behaviour, 69(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.05.008

  22. Kaminski, J., Schulz, L., & Tomasello, M. (2012). How dogs know when communication is intended for them. Developmental Science, 15(2), 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01120.x

  23. Kirchhofer, K. C., Zimmermann, F., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Dogs (Canis familiaris), but not chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), understand imperative pointing. PLOS ONE, 7(2), e30913–e30913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030913

  24. Lazarowski, L., & Dorman, D. C. (2015). A comparison of pet and purpose-bred research dog (Canis familiaris) performance on human-guided object-choice tasks. Behavioural Processes, 110, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.021

  25. Length, R. (2016). Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v069.i01

  26. Malassis, R., & Delfour, F. (2015). Sea lions’ (Zalophus californianus ) use of human pointing gestures as referential cues. Learning & Behavior, 43(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-014-0165-7

  27. Maros, K., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, A. (2008). Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 11(3), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5

  28. Miklósi, Á., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal Cognition, 1(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050016

  29. Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Virányi, Z., & Csányi, V. (2003). A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do. Current Biology, 13(9), 763–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00263-X

  30. Miklósi, Á., Pongrácz, P., Lakatos, G., Topál, J., & Csányi, 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. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119(2), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179

  31. Oliva, J. L., Rault, J.-L., Appleton, B., & Lill, A. (2015). Oxytocin enhances the appropriate use of human social cues by the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) in an object choice task. Animal Cognition, 18(3), 767–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0843-7

  32. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  33. Riedel, J., Schumann, K., Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Animal Behaviour, 75(3), 1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.010

  34. Scandurra, A., Prato-Previde, E., Valsecchi, P., Aria, M., & D’Aniello, B. (2015). Guide dogs as a model for investigating the effect of life experience and training on gazing behaviour. Animal Cognition, 18(4), 937–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0864-2

  35. Scandurra, A., Alterisio, A., Di Cosmo, A., D'Ambrosio, A., & D'Aniello, B. (2019). Ovariectomy impairs socio-cognitive functions in dogs. Animals: An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 9(2) https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9020058

  36. Smet, A. F., & Byrne, R. W. (2013). African elephants can use human pointing cues to find hidden food. Current Biology, 23(20), 2033–2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.037

  37. Tauzin, T., Csík, A., Kis, A., Kovács, K., & Topál, J. (2015a). The order of ostensive and referential signals affects dogs’ responsiveness when interacting with a human. Animal Cognition, 18(4), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0857-1

  38. Tauzin, T., Csík, A., Kis, A., & Topál, J. (2015b). What or where? The meaning of referential human pointing for dogs (Canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 129(4), 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039462

  39. Téglás, E., Gergely, A., Kupán, K., Miklósi, Á., & Topál, J. (2012). Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Current Biology, 22(3), 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.018

  40. Thoermer, C., & Sodian, B. (2001). Preverbal infants’ understanding of referential gestures. First Language, 21(63), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/014272370102106303

  41. Topál, J., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V. (1997). Dog–human relationship affects problem solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoös, 10(4), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279397787000987

  42. Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). Ontogeny and phylogeny: Both are essential to human-sensitive behaviour in the genus Canis. Animal Behaviour, 79(2), e9–e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.033

  43. Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008). Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Animal Behaviour, 76(6), 1767–1773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.028

  44. Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010a). The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Animal Behaviour, 79(3), 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.027

  45. Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010b). What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 85(2), 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00104.x

  46. Udell, M. A. R., Hall, N. J., Morrison, J., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2013). Point Topography and Within-Session Learning Are Important Predictors of Pet Dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) Performance on Human Guided Tasks. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento ( RACC ), 5(2), 1.

  47. Udell, M. A. R., Ewald, M., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2014). Exploring breed differences in dogs (Canis familiaris): Does exaggeration or inhibition of predatory response predict performance on human-guided tasks? Animal Behaviour, 89, 99–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.12.012

  48. 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). Animal Cognition, 11(3), 373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0127-y

  49. Wallis, L. J., Range, F., Müller, C. A., Serisier, S., Huber, L., & Virányi, Z. (2015). Training for eye contact modulates gaze following in dogs. Animal Behaviour, 106, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.04.020

  50. Wynne, C. D. L., Udell, M. A. R., & Lord, K. A. (2008). Ontogeny’s impacts on human–dog communication. Animal Behaviour, 76(4), e1–e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.03.010

  51. Zaine, I., Domeniconi, C., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2015). The ontogeny of human point following in dogs: When younger dogs outperform older. Behavioural Processes, 119, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.07.004

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Annie Steffy and Cristina Lawniczak for their work on this project. We also would like to thank the members of the Texas Tech University Canine Olfaction Lab for their help with the dogs used in this study as well as the Texas Tech University Undergraduate Research Scholars Program supported by the CH and Helen Jones Foundations. Lastly, we would like to thank our shelter partners for their support and assistance.

Open practices statements

Study data and R code for analysis is available as a supplementary material. This study was not preregistered.

Author information

Correspondence to Nathanial J. Hall.

Ethics declarations

Ethical statement

All procedures with animals were approved by the Texas Tech University Animal Care and Use Committee (Protocol # 16111-12).

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jarvis, T., Hall, N.J. Development of point following behaviors in shelter dogs. Learn Behav (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00415-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Associative learning
  • Comparative cognition
  • Discrimination
  • Generalization
  • Operant conditioning