Animal cognition II

Social Behavior

What kinds of things screw up animal’s perceptual

• Perseveration errors• Following the trajectory of an object• Misreading clues

Perseveration: What about Corvids?

• Have birds find hidden moth

• Operant conditioning task:– Moth and no moth

trials

– Either peck moth or key saying “no moth”

• Examine effects of perseveration

Stimuli

• Artificial moths on artificial backgrounds.

Results• Runs of the same type of prey

resulted in “search image” effects

• interference effects:– making a jay search for one type

of moth actually reduced likelihood of its finding an alternative type.

• First clear demonstration of attentional interference in visual search in animals.

What about dogs?Evidence of Solidarity Principle

• 2 critical tasks for animals:– Animals must be able to predict trajectories of moving objects– Animals must be able to predict whether to approach or avoid an object

• To do this: must be able to understand object occlusion- that is, how hidden objects “behave” as evidenced by:– Predictive reaching– Searching– Following a hidden object (and judging where it will emerge)

• Many (if not most) animals have some degree of ability to do these tasks– Is this an innate/prewired behavior?– Is this a “learned” or experience-based behavior?– Use expectancy violation paradigm.

Limitations on trajectory prediction• Developmental time course to this behavior

– Differs across animals, with primates showing greatest capacity– Seems somewhat dependent on motor abilities

• Problem: differences in data between search and expectancy violation tasks– Lack of executive ability? Mismatch between knowing and acting– Observational knowledge not same as action knowledge– Global interplay between cognitive subsystems and across settings?

• Which animals can solve these kinds of tasks?? – Evaluate search behavior when object rolled in direction of a barrier– human toddlers, adult rhesus macaques and cotton top tamarins all fail to

reason about location of hidden barrier when reaching for an invisibly displayed object

– Even when show sensitivity to solidity info in expectancy violation paradigm

Can dogs show expectancy of a travel path? (Brian Hare)

• Subjects:– Hare’s lab– 10 Pet dogs all over 1 year of age with no formal agility or advanced

obedience training• 4 female, 6 male, average age 4.5 years• many breeds; 6 were mutts

• Apparatus:– Used a clear plastic tube which extended into a wooden box– 2 doors on box: far door and near door– Could reach inside each door to retrieve object– False back: researcher could place objects into box on one side or

other– Basic idea: roll object down tube; barrier should block the object

from rolling to far door. – False baiting: distracted dog and moved object

Procedure

• Pretraining trials:– Dogs retrieved objects from box and generally

acclimated to situation– 3 trials with each ½ of box

• Test trials:– No wall and wall trials: Three blocks of each– Mixed block: no wall and wall– Mixed block always appeared last– Barrier not in place during no wall (obviously!)– Dogs prompted to “look” and find the treat

Results:

• Mean percent correct:– More mistakes during no wall– Wall: 85%– No wall: 75%– Mixed: 83%– Dogs tended to:

• Search near location when barrier in place• Search far location when no wall• Spontaneously searched in correct location from first of

each trial type• Performed correctly when mixed trials

Control Trials• No treat dropped down tube• Treats placed in box in different positions• If dogs not attending to dropping of treat but to

experimenter cuing, should perform according to location of wall

• Results showed: – No wall sides: chose far side 55%– Not significantly different from chance– Concluded that were attending to rolling treat

Conclusions

• Dogs do show solidarity principle• Why dogs, but not non-human primates?

– Selective breeding?– Experience with humans and thus human tasks?– Other explanations

Spatial Perseveration Errors (Osthaus, Marlow, Ducat, 2010)

• Detour tasks: move away from goal to get to goal– Perseveration errors: failing to shift strategies– Occur even when visible change of location of correct path, so can’t go back to old path

• Dogs can solve detour tasks– But: will show perseveration errors– Dogs from deprived environments worse than dogs with experience– More experience with a solution = more perseveration on that solution

• Major aim of study:– Determine if cognitive rigidity of dogs changes when change set up in simple detour task

which varied• number of learning trials• transparency of the barrier

• If dogs able to solve task after a required change in detour path: indicate complete understanding of task dynamics

• If perseveration error: lack of inhibition and prominence of learned behavior over clear visual cue

Method and Exp 1• Wooden barrier made from lattice garden trellis put across enclosed

rectangle– Opaque condition: covered with cloth– Visible condition: uncovered– Video taped all sessions

• Experiment 1:– mixed breeds– 4 “A” trials: started at either L or R– After 4th trial: barrier shifted to gap on opposite side– Then 4 B trials– If dog went straight to opening = correct; else incorrect

• Results: – All dogs in both conditions solved above chance– Opaque condition slightly faster– First trial significantly slower for B– Did not unlearn previous trial as shown by more errors

• Transparency of task had no effect

• Did rely more on memory than on visual with more trials

Exp 2• Same set up as Exp 1• Changed location of barrier after 1,2 or 3 trials

– So A1 = baseline, B2=change after 1 trial, B3= change after 2 trials, B4= change after 3 trials

• Results:– First set:

• 8/10 dogs went straight to gap in barrier after A1• 7/10 after shift• B2 = 90%• B3 = 90%• B4=86%• None reached 100%

– Second set:• A2: all dogs solved• B1: 1/10 solved• Took longer time for B1 than A1• Reached optimal performance within 2 trials• All showed perseveration error on B1, 4 still showed on B2

Discussion

• Dogs exhibited spatial perseveration reliably after 2 or more presentations– Failed to walk straight to new obvious goal– Began to rely on old learning rather than visual

cues after 2 trials

Means-end Analysis• Problem solving = progressing through series of

mediating actions in order to reach certain end goal– Must understand series of progressive steps as means to

end– Means to end understanding = key step in cognitive

development of humans

• What about non human animals:– Use string pulling or support problem– Tamarins, ravens/corvis, parrots, elephants all show ability– Dogs and domestic cats can retrieve distant food but fail

to understand means-ends analysis

Method (Range, Hentrup, Viranyi, 2011)• Subjects: 68 dogs and owners: examined by age, sex,

level of training, etc.

• Examine whether proximity bias interferes with task

• Test apparatus:– Black wooden board with 2 yellow colored wooden

boards mounted on top– Dog had to move yellow boards back and forth with

paws to get treats/ball– Tester in cage behind apparatus so dog couldn’t interact

• Procedure:– Training phase: taught to pull boards with paw using

shaping– Motivation assessment: object retrieval for food treat– Board presented in two ways:

• Board presented with reward/object on surface (ON)• Identical reward/object on other side of board (OFF) • To obtain reward, had to pull out board with

reward/object on it• Trial ended when dog investigated board that had

pulled out and took reward/object if it was there• 12 trials per condition (6L 6R)

• Conditions: – Same Distance– Weak proximity + support: both rewards/objects placed

at far end of board but reward/object placed “on” board was slighter closer

– Strong proximity + Support: much closer reward/object placed on board

– Proximity against support: reward/object closer to dog was placed “off” board

Results• Remember: Board presented in two ways:

– Board presented with reward/object on surface (ON)– Identical reward/object on other side of board (OFF) – To obtain reward, had to pull out board with reward/object on it

• Same Distance: – None of fixed (sex, age, training level) factors affected dogs’ performance– Dogs chose reward/object “on board” significantly more often

• Weak proximity + support: both rewards/objects placed at far end of board but reward/object placed “on” board was slighter closer

– None of fixed factors affected dogs– Dogs chose “on” more often– No significant difference from condition 1

• Strong proximity + Support: much closer reward/object placed on board– Learning history had an effect– Above chance by trial 6, and got better– Closeness improved performance, compared to condition 2

• Proximity against support: reward/object closer to dog was placed “off” board– Dogs rewarded with food did better– Dogs had difficulty retrieving correct object, chose proximity more often– Dogs were better in condition 1 than condition 4– Proximity against support was detrimental to performance (but not that much)

Discussion• Concluded dogs posses ability to consider means-end relationships

in support problem even if proximity is a confound– Reward type did play a role– Training did not play significant role– Proximity helped only if it was exaggerated

• But: performance NOT that strong overall when look at individual performance

• After looking at all three studies: – Can dogs problem solve? – Do they show evidence of thinking? – Why or why not?

Why poor performance in spatial tasks for dogs?

• Dogs seem to be able to DO the task, but not show understanding of task– Not good with spatial references– Great with social cues– Thus good social cognition; poor physical cognition– Likely due to breeding/experience with humans

• Is this due to lack of cognition or lack of impulse control?– Most errors are proximity errors: do/get the closest– Capable of efficient problem solving, but gets interrupted by other

behavioral strategies• Choose based on social cues and experience rather than physical• Choice based on exclusion as last result• Training also important, especially clicker training

What about social behaviors?

• Do animals use behavior to manipulate other animals behavior?

• Does this involve intentionality, or is it just innate?

• Moths using disguise; birds pretending to be hurt? Really!?!

Broken-wing display in plovers

• Can birds use their behavior to alter the behavior of a predator?

• Plover: lead the fox away from their nest

• Plover behavior:– act hurt, so looks like easy prey, – move away from nest– Does this require “intentionality” and

thinking? Why or why not?

Evidence from ploversSeveral levels of this behavior

• Flexible behavior: In 87% of staged encounters with a human, plovers moved in a direction that was away from the nest.

• Knowledge of other: plovers moved further away for “dangerous” intruders than “nonthreatening” intruders

• Should monitor intruder: Starts display when intruder can see it, if the intruder stops following, plover intensifies display, and approaches intruder.

• But can more hard-wired behaviors (ethological approach) explain these changes in behavior?– Sign stimuli and vectors? Eye direction?– Series of if/then statements based on combinations of sign stimuli?

Social Learning in Canines• Selectively avoid forbidden food, but grab it when the owner is not

looking

• Beg from an individual that can see them, rather than their owner who cannot.

• Learn via Social learning and Imitation– Watch human for cues to obtain food/toy– Can be taught to imitate: “do it”

• Follow a human point: sensitive to– Arm point– Head turning– Nodding– Bowing– Glancing in direction of target– Miklosi & sporoni, 2006; Agnette et al, 2000; Udell, et al, 2008

Social learning• Can do perspective taking

– Change reaction to forbidden food (Call, et a, 2003; Tomasello, 2008)

– Change where drop ball depending on position of human– Begging responses change depending on actions of human

• Attempt to communicate with humans:– Move objects closer– Indicate location of items– Ask for help with problem– Occurs as early as 8 weeks– Service dogs are better!– Miklosi, et al, 2003; Viranyi, et al, 2006; Topal, et al, 2006

Social learning

• Can model other dogs– Not as good as model humans– Snout contact provides information (Lupfer-

Johnson)

• Very good at modeling off of humans– Action matching: Do as I do– Topal, et al, 2006; Huber, et al, 2009; Range, et al,

20070

Povinelli and Eddy, 1996: Choice of target when begging

• Dogs trained to beg from a human for food– Offered choice of a blindfolded human or a human that could see

them– (for control, also a human with the blindfold over the mouth, nose,

around the neck)– Dogs preferred the human with no blindfold over the eyes; no

difference between this an person with blindfold who could see– Only chimps, bonobos also do this

• Povllelli, et al, 1990; Heyes, 1993– Dogs, like chimps, use human behavior for cues to food location– Humans pointed, turned head or just turned eyes to look at location

of hidden food– Dogs could use all three cues to determine where the food was

located

Held, et al., 2001; Ashton and Cooper (in Cooper et al, 2003)

• Dogs could use errors as clues, as well

• Dogs blindfolded or not– Watched/not watched model get a hidden food– Those who could watch did better

• Had other dogs watch the blindfolded dogs find the food– Blindfolded dogs made many mistakes before found food

– Those dogs who watched avoided the areas that the food was not and went more directly to the final food location, avoiding the errors

Cooper, et al 2001• Dogs able to choose observers:

– Three locations that food was hidden

– One human was in room (with the dog) when the food was hidden; human could see the location of the hidden food (watched the “hider”); dog could not

– Second person entered room after food was hidden

– Both humans sat in chairs, dog was to choose who to approach to get the food for them

• Overwhelmingly chose the individual who was in the room at the time the food was hidden

Dogs understand fairness(Range, et al., 2009)

• Dogs taught to shake hands to get a reward• Two dogs at a time

– Dogs had to shake hands with experimenter– One dog is rewarded, the other is not

• Dogs who got rewarded kept responding to cue

• Dogs who did NOT get rewarded– Hesitated longer before responding– Quit responding

Two studies for today:Is your choice my Choice?

• Study by Prato-Previde, Marshall-Pescini and Valsecchi (Italians!).

• Interested in how dogs’ owners may influence how dogs choose between bigger and smaller choice

• Food choice is particularly strong– Most dogs food driven– Choose bigger (evolutionary drive, too!)– But, also want to “please” their owners

Why choose owner’s preference?

• What has years of socialization selected dogs to do?– Attend to owners– “please” owners by obeying commands, doing

what owners desire

• Dogs are selected to both– Attend to humans– Choose most food

Method• 54 dog-owner dyads

– Mostly pure breeds– Some mixed breeds

• Three different tasks:– Bigger smaller choice– Bigger smaller choice with human pointing to smaller– 1:1 choice with human pointing to a particular choice

• Also gave the CBARQ assessment– Several subscales on aggression, excitation, separation anxiety,

general fears

• Did not feed dogs for several hours before study

Results• 1:1 condition:

– 82% chose owners choice– 6% chose opposite plate– 12% showed no preference

• Bigger/Smaller owners’ preference– 32% chose larger– 32% chose owner’s choice– 36% chose both equally often

• How did the deaf dogs in my study differ?– 75% chose the owner’s choice rather than the bigger choice

Other Effects• Gender differences: no differences

• Age effects: older dogs were likely to be more accurate

• Training Effects: no effects

• Location effects: indoors better than outdoors

• CBARQ: dogs more likely to follow owner preference were more likely to have higher separation anxiety scores

OWNERS’ EFFECT ON DEAF DOGS’ CHOICEUndergraduate Research Assistants: Dana Fredrickson, Kelsey Harper and Patrick Donlan

• Participants: 10 HVI and 10 NHV dogs.– Australian Shepherds, Labs, Goldens, Boxers, Pit Bulls, Mixes– All ages 1 to 10; average age was 2.8 for HVI; 5.4 for NHV

• Procedure: 2 quantities of food or balls– Small: single piece of food or single ball.– Large: 8 pieces of food or 4 balls.

• Three conditions:– Free choice test: Dog was free to choose either plate.– Owner showing clear preference for one plate, equal amounts– Owner showing clear preference for small quantity compared to the

larger quantity of food.Replication of: Prato-Previde, E., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2008). Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on

pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiarisis) performance in a food choice task. Animal Cogntion, 11, 167-174.

RESULTS

• Both HVI and NHV dogs showed general preference towards bigger reward

• Both HVI and NHV dogs chose owner preferred during 1:1

• HVI dogs were more easily swayed to choose the smaller than typical dogs

• Confirmed this preference for human signals with one last study.

Bigger/Smaller Task

Dogs

HVI NHV

Per

cent

age

Big

ger

Cho

ice

0

20

40

60

80

100

Bigger/SmallerOwner prefer Smaller

Dogs

HVI NHV

Per

cent

age

Big

ger

Cho

ice

0

20

40

60

80

100

1:1 Owner Preference

Dogs

HVI NHV

Per

cent

age

Ow

ner

Cho

ice

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lupfer-Johnson and Ross study• Dogs, along with just a few other species, are able to learn from

conspecifics– Human children– Red winged blackbirds– Dwarf (Siberian) but not Syrian hamsters– Rats

• What is common element: All are social species– Social behaviors important for feeding– Even in dogs!– Pavlov’s work showed that feeding can be conditioned

• Socializing while searching for food is advantageous– Help one another– All more likely to eat when work together– Working together increases likelihood of survival for individual and the group

Method• 22 dogs in boarding facility (doggie day care)

– 1 dog served as demonstrator for 12 total demonstrator-observer pairs

– All other dogs served once as either demonstrator or observer

• Used flavored food: basil or Thyme to dog food

• Procedure– Demonstrator dog ate basil or thyme food in separate room– Then, entered group room and allowed to interact with observer dog

for 20 minutes– Then observer dog offered both thyme and basil food; had to choose

one to eat– Food weighed to determine how much they ate of each food.

Results

• One way ANOVA on the data

• Dogs were significantly more likely to eat the flavor the demonstrator dog ate; just like our deaf dogs!

• Dogs with basil demonstrators ate significantly more basil food than those with thyme demonstrators (apparently thyme is icky)

ACQUIRING FOOD PREFERENCES FROM INTERACTION WITH HVI vs. NHV CONSPECIFICS

Undergraduate Research Assistants: Sasha Kaplan and Kellie Swoboda

• Participants: 8 HVI and 6 NHV dogs. – Australian Shepherds, Labs, Golden Retrievers, Boxers, Pit Bulls– Ages 1 to 11; mean for HVI = 2.8; mean for NHV = 5.5– Dogs served as both the demonstrator and the recipient. Each dog was

tested at least three time for each condition.

• Four conditions: – HVI demonstrator to HVI recipient; HVI demonstrator to NHV recipient– NHV demonstrator to HVI recipient; NHV demonstrator to NHV recipient

• The demonstrator dog given a specifically flavored food; • Dog pairs then allowed to socialize for 10 minutes. • Recipient dog presented with same and different food choices.

Replication of: Lupfer-Johnson, G. & Ross, J. (2007). Dogs acquire food preferences from interacting with recently fed conspecifics. Behavioral Processes, 74, 104-106.

Food Consumed by Demonstrator/Recipient Pairings

Condition

NH

V d

emon

stra

tor/

HV

I rec

ipie

nt

HV

I dem

onst

rato

r/H

VI r

ecip

ient

NH

V d

emon

stra

tor/

NH

V r

ecip

ient

HV

I dem

onst

rato

r/N

HV

rec

ipie

nt

Gra

ms

of F

ood

Con

sum

ed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Same Different

p=.05

p=.05

RESULTS• Significant difference for

same/different food, F(1,12)=45.91, p=.049

• Significant difference in amount consumed by HVI or NHV dogs, F(1,12)=29.66,

p<.001.

• Dogs ate more of the food presented to the demonstrator dog, regardless of whether they were HVI or NHV but HVI dogs ate more overall.

Why are these results important?• HVI and NHV dogs should not necessarily differ in

their scent experiences. – Both dogs use scent as social signals– No impairment in HVI dogs for scent cues

• Demonstrates that in non-involved sensory areas, HVI and NHV dogs show similar social patterns.

• But what about areas that HVI and NHV dogs DO differ?

DIFFERENCES IN PLAY BETWEEN HVI and NHV DOGS Undergraduate Assistants: Jacquelyn Johnson and Terry Coughlin

• Subjects: 7 HVI dogs and 7 NVH dogs– Australian Shepherds, boxers, labs, goldens, mixes, pit bulls– Ages ranged from 1 to 8; mean for HVI = 3.5; mean for NHV = 3.7– Dog play dyads were videotaped during 5 minute free play– Dogs paired in same (e.g., HVI to HVI) or different (HVI to NHV)

conditions

• Data analysis: – videotape sessions analyzed using 10-sec point in time sampling. – Horowitz’s play scale

• Play signals: • Attention getting play behavior• Non-attention getting play behavior• Other non-play behaviors

Replication of: Horowitz, A. (2009). Attention to attention in domestic dog (Canis familiaris) dyadic play. Animal Cognition, 12, 107-118.

• HVI dogs engaged in more overall play than NHV dogs particularly when playing with other HVI dogs. This decreased, but not significantly, when playing with NHV dogs.

Play Behavior

Play Condition

Same Different

Pro

port

ion

Pla

y B

ehav

ior

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

HVINHV

• HVI dogs engaged in more attention getting behavior NHV dogs particularly when playing with other HVI dogs. This decreased, but not significantly when playing with NHV dogs.

Attention Behavior

Play Condition

Same Different

Pro

port

ion

Atte

ntio

n B

ehav

ior

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

HVINHV

• HVI dogs engaged in more ignoring of attention getting behavior than NHV dogs particularly playing with other HVI dogs. This decreased when playing with NHV dogs.

Ignore

Play Condition

same different

Pro

port

ion

Atte

ntio

n B

ehav

ior

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

HVINHV

Both HVI and NHV dogs showed reduced non-play behavior during mixed play conditions.

Leap On

Play Pair Condition

Same Different

Pe

rce

ntag

e o

f Le

ap O

n

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

HVINHV

Bark

Play Pair Condition

Same Different

Per

cent

age

Bar

king

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

HVINHV

Other Nonplay Behavior

Play Pair Condition

Same Different

Pe

rce

nta

ge

oth

er

be

ha

vio

r

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

HVINHV

HVI dogs showed more physical interactions than NHV dogs. This decreased during mixed play.

HVI dogs barked significantly more than NHV dogs, and this increased during mixed play.

Play differs!• As expected, HVI dogs show different play patterns

than NHV dogs.– More attention getting, less responding to attention cues– More physical interactions such as leap on

• Similar to deaf and blind children, who are also very tactile– Much more and louder barking

• Again, similar to deaf children.’s vocal control difficulties

• HVI showed more and NHV dogs showed less physical play when playing with a similarly-abled dog than when playing with a differently-abled dog

• But how do HVI dogs interact with humans?

HEARING STATUS AS A VARIABLE PREDICTING SOCIAL LEARNING PERFORMANCE IN DOGS

Undergraduate Assistants: Garrett Hartzell and Tim Boroski

• Subjects: 5 HVI and 4 NHV dogs and their student trainers.– All trainers were familiar to the dogs– Australian Shepherds, Golden, Lab, Pit Bull, Boxer and Mixes– Mean age of HVI dogs=4; Mean age of NHV dogs = 6.7

• Apparatus: A V-shaped opaque fence forming a 90 degree angle

• Procedure: – Condition 1: The experimenter placed a toy behind the

fence by tossing it over the upper edge. The dog was prompted to go retrieve the toy.

– Condition 2: Dog models the retrieval of toy first– Condition 3: Human models retrieval of item first

Replication of: Kundey, S.M.A, De Los Reyes, A., Royer, E., Molina, S., Monnier, B., German, R., & Coshun, A. (2011). Reputation-like inference in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 14, 291-302.

Results:HVI dogs less accurate at solving

the barrier task than NHV dogs: t(7)=2.43, p=.05.

All dogs solved the barrier task after a human modeled the solution.

HVI dogs were less likely to follow the dog model than NHV dogs; this difference approached significance: t(7)=-2.45, p=.07.

What do the data tell us?

• Data clearly demonstrate that HVI dogs as a group show differences in social behavior compared to their normal cohorts.

• Differences include:– More physical behavior during play– Perseverative/loud barking during play– Difficulty interpreting social signals from other dogs– Greater separation anxiety for their human– More reliance on human signaling compared to dog

cohorts

Sensitivity to human social cues• Dogs show sensitivity to human social stimuli when

they reliably alter behavior to obtain reinforcement in the presence of stimuli that depends on instruction or mediation by a human companion

• Theory of Mind and dogs: Heyes (1998): “…an animal with a theory of mind believes that mental states play a causal role in generating behavior and infers the presence of mental states in others by observing their appearance and behavior under various circumstances”.

• DO dogs have a theory of mind but poor spatial cognition?