Behavior of hearing or vision impaired and normal hearing and vision dogs (Canis lupis familiaris): Not the same, but not that different

Farmer-Dougan, Valeri; Quick, Amanda Jean; Harper, Kelsey; Schmidt, Kirsten Daniela; Campbell, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2014.07.002

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, the authors had no inclusion criteria regarding the type of sensory impairment (i.e., congenital or late onset, hereditary or acquired, sensorineural or conductive). Fourth, their study investigated a much larger variety of dog breeds (see Table 3 in [22]) than ours. Farmer-Dougan and colleagues found smaller scores of aggressiveness for sensory impaired than for sensory normal dogs, which differs…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 87%

“…Precisely, there is no study that we are aware of that directly assessed either health, behaviour, communication or activities in congenitally sensory impaired dogs, or that compared sensory impaired and sensory normal dogs on these points. One exception is the study by Farmer-Dougan and colleagues, who addressed a survey of behavioural traits to owners of hearing/vision impaired and sensory normal dogs [22]. They found lower scores of aggressiveness and anxiety in the former cohort, which is opposite to the assumption.…”

Section: Aims and Methodological Choices Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Anxiety was likewise frequent for sensory normal and sensory impaired cohorts (frequencies = 23% and 31%, respectively; X 2 = 3.48, p = 1.0; see Fig 6C). Farmer-Dougan and colleagues found lower anxiety scores for sensory impaired than for sensory normal dogs [22]. Both studies thus refute the above-mentioned assumption.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 89%

“…To assess these different points, we chose to conduct an owner survey, a method that is frequently employed to assess, for example, health [23] and behaviour [22], in dogs. Surveys of dog owners have some disadvantages relative to the degrees of interest, understanding, recall and impartiality of the respondents, but have the following advantages: they allow the inclusion of dogs with much wider characteristics compared to surveys of veterinarians or animal insurance companies for questions on health, dog behaviourists for questions on behaviour, or canine clubs for questions on activities.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aggressiveness was likewise seldom for sensory normal and sensory impaired cohorts (frequencies = 7% and 12%, respectively; X 2 = 2.93, p = 1.0; see Fig 6B), which is opposite to the above-mentioned assumption. There is only one past study that we are aware of that compared behavioural troubles in sensory impaired and sensory normal dogs [22]. As for the present study, the authors conducted an owner survey.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Are dogs with congenital hearing and/or vision impairments so different from sensory normal dogs? A survey of demographics, morphology, health, behaviour, communication, and activities

Savel

Sombé

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The births of domestic dogs with pigment deletion and associated congenital hearing and/or vision impairments are increasing, as a result of mutations of certain genes expressing popular coat colour patterns (Merle, piebald, Irish spotting). The future of these dogs is often pessimistic (early euthanasia or placement in rescues/fosters, lack of interactions and activities for adults). These pessimistic scenarios result from popular assumptions predicting that dogs with congenital hearing/vision impairments exhibit severe Merle-related health troubles (cardiac, skeletal, neurological), impairment-related behavioural troubles (aggressiveness, anxiety), and poor capacities to communicate, to be trained, and to be engaged in leisure or work activities. However, there is no direct scientific testing, and hence no evidence or refutation, of these assumptions. We therefore addressed an online questionnaire to owners of 223 congenitally sensory impaired (23 vision impaired, 63 hearing impaired, 137 hearing and vision impaired) and 217 sensory normal dogs from various countries. The sensory normal cohort was matched in age, lifetime with owner, breed and sex with the sensory impaired cohort, and was used as a baseline. The questionnaire assessed demographics, morphology, sensory impairments, health and behavioural troubles, activities, and dogowner communication. Most hearing and/or vision impaired dogs exhibited abnormal pigment deletion in their coat and irises. Vision impaired dogs additionally exhibited ophthalmic abnormalities typically related to Merle. The results are opposed to all above-listed assumptions, except for neurological troubles, which were more frequently reported in sensory impaired dogs. However, we suggest that this finding could be partially accounted for by a lack of diagnosis of breed-related drug sensitivity and impairment-related compulsive behaviours. Results about communication and activities are particularly optimistic. The need for future studies of numerous dogs from various breeds tested for Merle, piebald and medical-drug-resistance genes, and the beneficial effects that present and future research may have on the future of sensory impaired dogs, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Aims and Methodological Choices Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations