Abstract
One of the fundamental issues in the study of animal cognition concerns categorization. Although domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are on the brink to become one of the model animals in animal psychology, their categorization abilities are unknown. This is probably largely due to the absence of an adequate method for testing dogs’ ability to discriminate between large sets of pictures in the absence of human cueing. Here we present a computer-automated touch-screen testing procedure, which enabled us to test visual discrimination in dogs while social cueing was ruled out. Using a simultaneous discrimination procedure, we first trained dogs (N = 4) to differentiate between a set of dog pictures (N = 40) and an equally large set of landscape pictures. All subjects learned to discriminate between the two sets and showed successful transfer to novel pictures. Interestingly, presentation of pictures providing contradictive information (novel dog pictures mounted on familiar landscape pictures) did not disrupt performance, which suggests that the dogs made use of a category-based response rule with classification being coupled to category-relevant features (of the dog) rather than to item-specific features (of the background). We conclude that dogs are able to classify photographs of natural stimuli by means of a perceptual response rule using a newly established touch-screen procedure.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adachi I, Kuwahata H, Fujita K (2007) Dogs recall their owner’s face upon hearing the owner’s voice. Anim Cogn 10:17–21
Aguirre G (1978) Retinal degeneration in the dog: Rod dysplasia. Exp Eye Res 26:233–253
Arey LB, Gore M (1942) The numerical relation-ships between the ganglion cells of the retina and the fibres in the optic nerve of the dog. J Comp Neurol 77:609–617
Aust U, Huber L (2001) The role of item- and category-specific information in the discrimination of people- vs. nonpeople images by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 29:107–119
Aust U, Huber L (2002) Target-defining features in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 30:165–176
Aust U, Huber L (2003) Elemental versus configural perception in a “people-present/people-absent” discrimination task by pigeons. Learn Behav 3:213–224
Aust U, Huber L (2006) Picture-object recognition in pigeons: eidence of representational insight in a visual categorization task using a Complementary Information Procedure. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 32:190–195
Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M (2006) Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol 120:38–47
Coile DC, Pollitz CH, Smith JC (1989) Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiol Behav 45:1087–1092
Cook RG (2001) Avian visual cognition. On-line: http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/cook
Cook RG, Wright AA, Kendrick DF (1990) Visual categorization by pigeons. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Kosslyn SM, Mumford DB (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior, vol 8. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 187–214
D’Amato MR, Van Sant P (1988) The person concept in monkeys (Cebus apella). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 14:43–55
Delorme A, Richard G, Fabre-Thorpe M (2000) Ultra-rapid categorisation of natural scenes does not rely on colour cues: a study in monkeys and humans. Vision Res 40:2187–2200
Fagot J (2000) Picture perception in animals. Psychology Press Ltd, East Sussex
Frank H (1980) Evolution of canine information processing under conditions of natural and artifical selection. Z Tierpsychol 59:389–399
Greene S (1983) Feature memorization in pigeon concept formation. In: Commons ML, Herrnstein RJ, Wagner AR (eds) Quantitative analysis of behavior, vol 4. Ballinger, Cambridge, pp 209–229
Hare B, Tomasello M (2005) Human-like social skills in dogs? Trends Cogn Sci 9(9):439–444
Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598):1634–1636
Heffner H (1975) Perception of biologically meaningful sounds by dogs. J Acoust Soc Am 58:S124
Herrnstein RJ (1990) Levels of categorization. In: Edelman GM, Gall WE, Cowan WM (eds) Signal and sense. Local and global order in perceptual maps. Wiley, New York
Herrnstein RJ, De Villiers PA (1980) Fish as a natural category for people and pigeons. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation, vol 14. Academic, NY, pp 59–95
Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH (1964) Complex visual concept in the pigeon. Science 146:549–551
Herrnstein RJ, Loveland DH, Cable C (1976) Natural concepts in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 2:285–311
Huber L (1999) Generic perception: open-ended categorization of natural classes. Cah Psychol Cogn—Curr Psychol Cogn 18:845–888
Huber L (2001) Visual categorization in pigeons. In: Cook RG (ed) Avian visual cognition. On-line: http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/avc/
Huber L, Aust U (2006) A modified feature theory as an account of pigeon visual categorization. In: Wasserman EA, Zentall TR (eds) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 325–342
Huber L, Troje NF, Loidolt M, Aust U, Grass D (2000) Natural categorization through multiple feature learning in pigeons. Q J Exp Psychol 53B(4):341–357
Huber L, Apfalter W, Steurer M, Prossinger H (2005) A new learning paradigm elicits fast visual discrimination in pigeons. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 31:237–246
Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog: evidence for “fast mapping”. Science 304(5677):1682–1683
Kubinyi E, Topal J, Miklosi A, Csanyi V (2003) Dogs (Canis familiaris) learn from their owners via observation in a manipulation task. J Comp Psychol 117(2):156–165
Lea SEG (1984) In what sense do pigeons learn concepts? In: Roitblat HL, Bever TG, Terrace HS (eds) Animall Cognition. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 263–276
Matsuzawa T (2001) Primate origins of human cognition and behavior. Springer, Tokyo
McIlvane WJ, Serna RW, Dube WV, Stromer R (2000) Stimulus control topography coherence and stimulus equivalence: Reconciling test outcomes with theory. In: Leslie JC, Blackman D (eds) Experimental and applied analysis of human behavior. Context Press, Reno, pp 85–110
Miklosi A, Soproni K (2006) A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn 9:81–93
Miklosi A, Kubinyi E, Topal J, Gacsi M, Viranyi Z, Csanyi V (2003) A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans but dogs do. Curr Biol 13:763–767
Miklosi A, Topal J, Csanyi V (2004) Comparative social cognition: what can dogs teach us? Anim Behav 67:995–1004
Monen J, Brenner E, Reynaerts J (1998) What does a pigeon see in a Picasso? J Exp Anal Behav 69:223–226
Neitz J, Geist T, Jacobs G (1989) Color vision in the dog. Vis Neurosci 3:119–125
Odom JV, Bromberg NM, Dawson WW (1983) Canine visual acuity: retinal and cortical field potentials evoked by pattern stimulation. Am J Physiol 245:R637–R641
Peichl L (1991) Catecholaminergic amacrine cells in the dog and wolf retina. Vis Neurosci 7:575–587
Pfungst O (1907) Das Pferd des Herrn von Osten (Der Kluge Hans): Ein Beitrag zur experimentellen Tier- und Menschenpsychologie. Johann Ambrosius Barth, Leipzig
Pisacreta R, Rilling M (1987) Infrared touch technology as a response detector in animal research. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 19:389–396
Pongracz P, Miklosi A, Timar-Geng K, Csanyi V (2003) Preference for copying unambiguous demonstrations in dogs (Canis familiaris). J Comp Psychol, 117(3):337–343
Pongracz P, Miklosi A, Timar-Geng K, Csanyi V (2004) Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. J Comp Psychol 118(4):375–383
Roberts WA, Mazmanian DS (1988) Concept learning at different levels of abstraction by pigeons, monkeys, and people. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav process 14:247–260
Svartberg K (2005) A comparison of behaviour in test and in everyday life: evidence of three consistent boldness-related personality traits in dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci 91(1–2):103–128
Topal J, Miklosi A, Csanyi V, Doka A (1998) Attachment behavior in dogs (Canis familiaris): a new application of Ainsworth’s (1969) strange situation test. J Comp Psychol 112(3):219–229
Troje NF, Huber L, Loidolt M, Aust U, Fieder M (1999) Categorical learning in pigeons: te role of texture and shape in complex static stimuli. Vis Res 39:353–366
Wadenstein L (1956) The use of flicker electroretinogra-phy in the human eye: observations on clinical cases. Acta Ophthalmol 34:311–340
Zentall T, Wasserman E (2006) Comparative cognition: experimental explorations of animal intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York
Acknowledgments
This work has received research funding from the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme under contract number: NEST 012929. We thank especially Karin Bayer and Zsófia Virányi for helping with the experiments, the dog owners for participating and three anonymous reviewers for comments. The experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.
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
Range, F., Aust, U., Steurer, M. et al. Visual categorization of natural stimuli by domestic dogs. Anim Cogn 11, 339–347 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0123-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0123-2