1. Animal cognition II
Social Behavior

2. What kinds of things screw up animal’s perceptual
Perseveration errors
Following the trajectory of an object
Misreading clues

3. 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

4. Stimuli
Artificial moths on artificial backgrounds.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

10. Procedure Pretraining trials: Test 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

11. Results: Mean percent correct: More mistakes during no wall Wall: 85%
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

12. 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

13. Conclusions Dogs do show solidarity principle
Why dogs, but not non-human primates?
Selective breeding?
Experience with humans and thus human tasks?
Other explanations

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Results Remember: Board presented in two ways: Same Distance:
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)

21. 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?

22. 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

23. 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!?!

24. 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?

25. Evidence from plovers Several 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?

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Method 54 dog-owner dyads Three different tasks:
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

36. Results 1:1 condition: Bigger/Smaller owners’ preference
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

37. 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

38. OWNERS’ EFFECT ON DEAF DOGS’ CHOICE Undergraduate 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,

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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.

42. 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)

43. Participants: 8 HVI and 6 NHV dogs.
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,

44. 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.

45. 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?

46. 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,

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

50. HVI dogs showed more physical interactions than NHV dogs
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.
Both HVI and NHV dogs showed reduced non-play behavior during mixed play conditions.

51. 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?

52. All trainers were familiar to the dogs
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,

53. 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.

54. 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

55. 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?