The case of the magic bones: Dogs’ memory of the physical properties of objects

Dogs' expectations about occlusion events: from expectancy violation to exploration

Previous research on human infants has shown that violations of basic physical regularities can stimulate exploration, which may represent a type of hypothesis testing aimed at acquiring knowledge about new causal relationships. In this study, we examined whether a similar connection between expectancy violation and exploration exists in nonhuman animals. Specifically, we investigated how dogs react to expectancy violations in the context of occlusion events. Throughout three experiments, dogs exhibited longer looking times at expectancy-inconsistent events than at consistent ones. This finding was further supported by pupil size analyses in the first two eye-tracking experiments. Our results suggest that dogs expect objects to reappear when they are not obstructed by a screen and consider the size of the occluding screen in relation to the occluded object. In Experiment 3, expectancy violations increased the dogs' exploration of the target object, similar to the findings with human infants. We conclude that expectancy violations can provide learning opportunities for nonhuman animals as well.

Dogs' ability to follow temporarily invisible moving objects: the ability to track and expect is shaped by experience

Visually tracking a moving object, even if it becomes temporarily invisible, is an important skill for animals living in complex environments. However, this ability has not been widely explored in dogs. To address this gap of knowledge and understand how experience contributes to such ability, we conducted two experiments using a violation of expectation paradigm. Dogs were shown an animation of a ball moving horizontally across a screen, passing behind an occluder, and reappearing with a timing that was faster, slower or congruent with its initial speed. In the first experiment, dogs (N = 15) were exposed to the incongruent conditions without prior experience; while in the second experiment, dogs (N = 37) were preliminarily exposed to the congruent stimulus. Dogs of the first experiment did not exhibit a surprise effect, as measured by latency to look away from the expected stimulus presentation area, in response to the incongruent conditions, suggesting they had not formed an expectation about the timing of reappearance. However, their latency to orient towards the reappearing ball depended on the condition, suggesting they were able, to some extent, to visually keep track of the stimulus' trajectory. Dogs of the second experiment were surprised when the ball stayed behind the occluder longer than expected, but showed no difference in latency to orient across conditions. This suggests they had overcome the visual tracking mechanism and had formed expectations about the timing of reappearance. In conclusion, dogs seem to use a low-level mechanism to keep visual track of a temporarily disappearing moving object, but experience is required to make expectation about its trajectory.

Individual recognition and long-term memory of inanimate interactive agents and humans in dogs

Investigation of individual recognition (IR) is difficult due to the lack of proper control of cues and previous experiences of subjects. Utilization of artificial agents (Unidentified Moving Objects: UMOs) may offer a better approach than using conspecifics or humans as partners. In Experiment 1, we investigated whether dogs are able to develop IR of UMOs (that is stable for at least 24 h) or that they only retain a more generalised memory about them. The UMO helped dogs to obtain an unreachable ball and played with them. One day, one week or one month later, we tested whether dogs display specific behaviour toward the familiar UMO over unfamiliar ones (four-way choice test). Dogs were also re-tested in the same helping context and playing interaction. Subjects did not approach the familiar UMO sooner than the others; however, they gazed at the familiar UMO earlier during re-testing of the problem solving task, irrespectively of the delay. In Experiment 2, we repeated the same procedure with human partners, applying a two-way choice test after a week delay, to study whether lack of IR was specific to the UMO. Dogs did not approach the familiar human sooner than the unfamiliar, but they gazed at the familiar partner earlier during re-testing. Thus, dogs do not seem to recognise an individual UMO or human after a short experience, but they remember the interaction with the novel partner in general, even after a long delay. We suggest that dogs need more experience with a specific social partner for the development of long-term memory.

Dogs' looking times and pupil dilation response reveal expectations about contact causality

Contact causality is one of the fundamental principles allowing us to make sense of our physical environment. From an early age, humans perceive spatio-temporally contiguous launching events as causal. Surprisingly little is known about causal perception in non-human animals, particularly outside the primate order. Violation-of-expectation paradigms in combination with eye-tracking and pupillometry have been used to study physical expectations in human infants. In the current study, we establish this approach for dogs (Canis familiaris). We presented dogs with realistic three-dimensional animations of launching events with contact (regular launching event) or without contact between the involved objects. In both conditions, the objects moved with the same timing and kinematic properties. The dogs tracked the object movements closely throughout the study but their pupils were larger in the no-contact condition and they looked longer at the object initiating the launch after the no-contact event compared to the contact event. We conclude that dogs have implicit expectations about contact causality.

Dogs accurately track a moving object on a screen and anticipate its destination

The prediction of upcoming events is of importance not only to humans and non-human primates but also to other animals that live in complex environments with lurking threats or moving prey. In this study, we examined motion tracking and anticipatory looking in dogs in two eye-tracking experiments. In Experiment 1, we presented pet dogs (N = 14) with a video depicting how two players threw a Frisbee back and forth multiple times. The horizontal movement of the Frisbee explained a substantial amount of variance of the dogs' horizontal eye movements. With increasing duration of the video, the dogs looked at the catcher before the Frisbee arrived. In Experiment 2, we showed the dogs (N = 12) the same video recording. This time, however, we froze and rewound parts of the video to examine how the dogs would react to surprising events (i.e., the Frisbee hovering in midair and reversing its direction). The Frisbee again captured the dogs' attention, particularly when the video was frozen and rewound for the first time. Additionally, the dogs looked faster at the catcher when the video moved forward compared to when it was rewound. We conclude that motion tracking and anticipatory looking paradigms provide promising tools for future cognitive research with canids.

Do Nonhumans Seek Explanations?

From an early age, children explore their environment in a way suggesting that they reason about causal variables and seek causal explanations. Indeed, following extensive studies of problem-solving abilities in chimpanzees, Povinelli (Folk Physics for Apes, Oxford University Press, 2000) proposed that this ability to reason about unobservable variables is unique to humans. Following on from this, Povinelli and Dunphy-Lelii (Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(2), 187-195, 2001) addressed the question whether chimpanzees would explore objects with the aim of elucidating unobservable and surprising object properties. Chimpanzees, unlike preschool children, did not show increased object exploration following a change in the unobservable properties of an object. We critically discuss these findings and argue that more research using a greater variety of methods and with a larger number of species is required to support the hypothesis that only humans engage in explanation seeking. We conclude by highlighting avenues for future research based on developmental and comparative research aimed at object exploration and information seeking conducted since the original investigation by Povinelli and Dunphy-Lelii.

In what sense are dogs special? Canine cognition in comparative context

The great increase in the study of dog cognition in the current century has yielded insights into canine cognition in a variety of domains. In this review, we seek to place our enhanced understanding of canine cognition into context. We argue that in order to assess dog cognition, we need to regard dogs from three different perspectives: phylogenetically, as carnivoran and specifically a canid; ecologically, as social, cursorial hunters; and anthropogenically, as a domestic animal. A principled understanding of canine cognition should therefore involve comparing dogs' cognition with that of other carnivorans, other social hunters, and other domestic animals. This paper contrasts dog cognition with what is known about cognition in species that fit into these three categories, with a particular emphasis on wolves, cats, spotted hyenas, chimpanzees, dolphins, horses, and pigeons. We cover sensory cognition, physical cognition, spatial cognition, social cognition, and self-awareness. Although the comparisons are incomplete, because of the limited range of studies of some of the other relevant species, we conclude that dog cognition is influenced by the membership of all three of these groups, and taking all three groups into account, dog cognition does not look exceptional.

Comparative Cognition: Action Imitation Using Episodic Memory

Humans encounter a myriad of actions or events and later recall some of these events using episodic memory. New research suggests that dogs can imitate recently encountered actions using episodic memory.

Recall of Others' Actions after Incidental Encoding Reveals Episodic-like Memory in Dogs

The existence of episodic memory in non-human animals is a debated topic that has been investigated using different methodologies that reflect diverse theoretical approaches to its definition. A fundamental feature of episodic memory is recalling after incidental encoding, which can be assessed if the recall test is unexpected [1]. We used a modified version of the "Do as I Do" method [2], relying on dogs' ability to imitate human actions, to test whether dogs can rely on episodic memory when recalling others' actions from the past. Dogs were first trained to imitate human actions on command. Next, they were trained to perform a simple training exercise (lying down), irrespective of the previously demonstrated action. This way, we substituted their expectation to be required to imitate with the expectation to be required to lie down. We then tested whether dogs recalled the demonstrated actions by unexpectedly giving them the command to imitate, instead of lying down. Dogs were tested with a short (1 min) and a long (1 hr) retention interval. They were able to recall the demonstrated actions after both intervals; however, their performance declined more with time compared to conditions in which imitation was expected. These findings show that dogs recall past events as complex as human actions even if they do not expect the memory test, providing evidence for episodic-like memory. Dogs offer an ideal model to study episodic memory in non-human species, and this methodological approach allows investigating memory of complex, context-rich events. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Now You See It, Now You Don’t

The cognitive ability of dogs can be assessed using tasks from the human developmental literature. A task that appears to have ecological relevance is the object-permanence task, in which performance hinges on understanding that an object continues to exist once it can no longer be seen. Although dogs are good at visible displacement tasks, in which an object disappears into a container, they can also understand an invisible displacement, in which the container holding the object is moved. Furthermore, we have found that dogs are able to show considerable memory for the invisibly displaced object. We have also found evidence for object permanence in dogs using the violation-of-expectancy procedure, in which subjects look longer at a stimulus that violates expectations (a screen that appears to pass through an object that has been placed behind the screen) than one that does not. Similarly, we have found that dogs look longer at an object that appears to have changed color or size after being placed behind a screen compared to an object that has not changed. Object-permanence tasks provide an ecologically relevant means of evaluating the cognitive development of dogs.