The early ontogeny of human–dog communication

Riedel, Julia; Schumann, Katrin; Kaminski, Juliane; Call, Josep; Tomasello, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.010

Cited by 209 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In certain situations, dogs' behaviour is probably driven by a motivation to satisfy ostensively signalled human imperatives in the 'here-and-now' (Topál et al 2009b) and the ostensively communicated human action demonstrations can be functionally interpreted as imperatives by dogs with the function of performing the observed action in the presence of (and 'for') the human demonstrator. In agreement with the studies showing specific sensitivity to human's communicative signals in dogs (Erdőhegyi et al 2007;Kaminski et al 2009;Riedel et al 2008), we propose that for the dog, the function of human demonstration is not (only)…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task?

Kupán

Miklósi

Gergely³

et al. 2010

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many argue that dogs show unique susceptibility to human communicative signals that make them suitable for being engaged in complex co-operation with humans. It has also been revealed that socially provided information is particularly effective in influencing the behaviour of dogs even when the human's action demonstration conveys inefficient or mistaken solution of task. It is unclear, however, how the communicative nature of the demonstration context and the presence of the human demonstrator affect the dogs' objectchoice behaviour in observational learning situations. In order to unfold the effects of these factors, 76 adult pet dogs could observe a communicative or a non-communicative demonstration in which the human retrieved a tennis ball from under an opaque container while manipulating another distant and obviously empty (transparent) one. Subjects were then allowed to choose either in the presence of the demonstrator or after she left the room. Results showed a significant main effect of the demonstration context (presence or absence of the human's communicative signals), and we also found some evidence for the responsemodifying effect of the presence of the human demonstrator during the dogs' choice. That is, dogs predominantly chose the baited container, but if the demonstration context was communicative and the human was present during the dogs' choice, subjects' tendency to select the baited container has been reduced. In agreement with the studies showing sensitivity to human's communicative signals in dogs, these findings point to a special form of social influence in observational learning situations when it comes to learning about causally opaque and less efficient (compared to what comes natural to the dog) action demonstrations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task?

Kupán

Miklósi

Gergely³

et al. 2010

Anim Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Momentary distal pointing" provides a diYcult scenario for Wnding hidden food (in comparison to pointing gestures used by Hare et al (2002) or Riedel et al (2007) because (1) the pointing Wnger is more than 50 cm far from the baited bowl, (2) the subjects cannot see the pointing hand during their approach to the bowl, and (3) the handcue is not accompanied by gazing at the bowl. In the case of momentary pointing gestures, the subject has to remember a short and relatively distant signal for some time before making a choice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris)

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dogs have a remarkable skill to use humangiven cues in object-choice tasks, but little is known to what extent their closest wild-living relative, the wolf can achieve this performance. In Study 1, we compared wolf and dog pups hand-reared individually and pet dogs of the same age in their readiness to form eye-contact with a human experimenter in an object-choice task and to follow her pointing gesture. The results showed that dogs already at 4 months of age use momentary distal pointing to Wnd hidden food even without intensive early socialization. Wolf pups, on the contrary, do not attend to this subtle pointing. Accordingly in Studies 2 and 3, these wolves were tested longitudinally with this and four other (easier) human-given cues. This revealed that wolves socialized at a comparable level to dogs are able to use simple humangiven cues spontaneously if the human's hand is close to the baited container (e.g. touching, proximal pointing). Study 4 showed that wolves can follow also momentary distal pointing similarly to dogs if they have received extensive formal training. Comparing the wolves to naïve pet dogs of the same age revealed that during several months of formal training wolves can reach the level of dogs in their success of following momentary distal pointing in parallel with improving their readiness to form eyecontact with a human experimenter. We assume that the high variability in the wolves' communicative behaviour might have provided a basis for selection during the course of domestication of the dog.

show abstract

“…pointing gestures) virtually as well as older dogs that obviously have more human experience. They focused their critique on Riedel et al (2008), who reported in three experiments that puppies as young as 6 weeks old are skilled at using human communicative cues. First, Riedel et al (2008) reported a longitudinal comparison of performance in dogs, aged 6-24 weeks old, with two human pointing cues, a novel marker cue, and a control condition with no cue.…”

Section: Response To Wynne Et Al (2008): Does Human Experience Matter?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically they found that wolves were more skilled than shelter dogs and pet dogs tested outdoors, and equally as skilled as pet dogs tested indoors. In a second study, Wynne et al (2008) critiqued an experiment by Riedel et al (2008) that examined the use of human communicative cues by dog puppies. Riedel and colleagues reported a series of three studies showing that domestic dog puppies comprehended a human pointing gesture as early as 6 weeks of age.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even puppies as young as 6-9 weeks of age can use a human's communicative cues, including unadopted puppies still living with their littermates and having little exposure to humans beyond routine care (Hare et al 2002;Riedel et al 2008;Viranyi et al 2008). This suggests that dogs' use of human communicative cues does not require extensive exposure to humans (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The domestication hypothesis for dogs' skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008)

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The early ontogeny of human–dog communication

Cited by 209 publications

References 26 publications

Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task?

Why do dogs (Canis familiaris) select the empty container in an observational learning task?

Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris)

The domestication hypothesis for dogs' skills with human communication: a response to Udell et al. (2008) and Wynne et al. (2008)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About