Abstract
Ostensive signals preceding referential cues are crucial in communication-based human knowledge acquisition processes. Since dogs are sensitive to both human ostensive and referential signals, here we investigate whether they also take into account the order of these signals and, in an object-choice task, respond to human pointing more readily when it is preceded by an ostensive cue indicating communicative intent. Adult pet dogs (n = 75) of different breeds were presented with different sequences of a three-step human action. In the relevant sequence (RS) condition, subjects were presented with an ostensive attention getter (verbal addressing and eye contact), followed by referential pointing at one of two identical targets and then a non-ostensive attention getter (clapping of hands). In the irrelevant sequence (IS) condition, the order of attention getters was swapped. We found that dogs chose the target indicated by pointing more frequently in the RS as compared to the IS condition. While dogs selected randomly between the target locations in the IS condition, they performed significantly better than chance in the RS condition. Based on a further control experiment (n = 22), it seems that this effect is not driven by the aversive or irrelevant nature of the non-ostensive cue. This suggests that dogs are sensitive to the order of signal sequences, and the exploitation of human referential pointing depends on the behaviour pattern in which the informing cue is embedded.
References
Arnold K, Zuberbühler K (2008) Meaningful call combinations in a non-human primate. Curr Biol 18:R202–R203. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.01.040
Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J et al (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol 120:38–47
Csibra G (2010) Recognizing communicative intentions in infancy. Mind Lang 25:141–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01384.x
Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O et al (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
Gácsi M, Topál J, Csányi V et al (2005) Species-specific differences and similarities in the behavior of hand-raised dog and wolf pups in social situations with humans. Dev Psychobiol 47:111–122
Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M (1998) Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evol Commun 2:137–159
Kaminski J, Schulz L, Tomasello M (2012) How dogs know when communication is intended for them. Dev Sci 15:222–232. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01120.x
Kershenbaum A, Ilany A, Blaustein L, Geffen E (2012) Syntactic structure and geographical dialects in the songs of male rock hyraxes. P Roy Soc B Biol Sci 279:2974–2981. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0322
Miklósi Á, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93. doi:10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1
Miklósi Á, Polgárdi R, Topál J et al (2000) Intentional behaviour in dog–human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behaviour in the dog. Anim Cogn 3:159–166. doi:10.1007/s100710000072
Owren MJ, Rendall D, Ryan MJ (2010) Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication. Biol Philos 25:755–780. doi:10.1007/s10539-010-9224-4
Parise E, Friederici AD, Striano T (2010) ‘‘Did you call me?’’ 5-month-old infants own name guides their attention. PLoS One 5:e14208. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014208
Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M (2008) The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Anim Behav 73:1003–1014. doi:10.1007/s10071-005-0256-0
Senju A, Csibra G (2008) Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Curr Biol 18:668–671. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059
Sperber D, Wilson D (1995) Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford
Téglás E, Gergely A, Kupán K, Miklósi Á, Topál J (2012) Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Curr Biol 22:209–212. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.018
Topál J, Gergely G, Erdőhegyi Á et al (2009) Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants. Science 325:1269–1272. doi:10.1126/science.1176960
Topál J, Kis A, Oláh K (2014) Dogs’ sensitivity to human ostensive cues: a unique adaptation? In: Kaminski J, Marshall-Pescini S (eds) The Social Dog: Behavior and Cognition. Elsevier, San Diego, pp 319–346. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-407818-5.00012-7. ISBN 9780124078185i
Wynne CDL, Udell MAR, Lord K (2008) Ontogeny’s impacts on human–dog communication. Anim Behav 76:e1–e4. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.033
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Ádám Miklósi for his support. Financial support was provided by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA K-112138) and an ESF ‘CompCog’ Research Networking Programme.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tauzin, T., Csík, A., Kis, A. et al. The order of ostensive and referential signals affects dogs’ responsiveness when interacting with a human. Anim Cogn 18, 975–979 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0857-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0857-1