1. The Cognitive Dog Class 11: Simple but reliable rules...

2. Big themes coming up How dogs may learn about, and make sense of, a complicated world by using “simple” rules that work well enough to get by... Individually the rules may be simple, but the net effect is extremely powerful... may be especially true with respect to rules they use to learn & make use of human social behavior...

3. The cognitive tasks we are going to examine Use of pointing gestures Object Permanence, Invisible Displacement, Means-Ends Social Learning Use of acoustic cues (words...) The big theme... Dogs are masters of using simple but reliable rules to make sense of a complicated world, so indeed, they may be doing just enough to get by.

4. Example of a SBRE rule... Dog looks out window every evening as you come home? Look at clock on wall? Internal clock? Hear car coming up street/driveway? Associate smell of food prep. with arrival? Associate radio on with arrival?

5. Decisions, decisions...

6. The big idea... Dogs have choices to make... When they make a choice sometimes it turns out better than expected sometimes worse... When they have to make the same decision in the future, how do they weigh past experience? Pay more attention to recent outcomes than less recent outcomes...

7. Experimental setup Stage A: Random pail baited, dog finds food, repeat 7 times with same pail Stage B: Different random pail baited, dog finds food, repeat 7 times with same pail Test: Which pail does the dog go to? Devenport, J. A. and L. D. Devenport (1993). "Time-Dependent Decisions in Dogs (Canis familiaris)." Journal of Comparative Psychology 107(2): 169-173.

8. Experimental setup: 2 Groups AB-T Test followed Stage B by 23.5 Hrs A-BT Stage B followed Stage A with 23.5 Hrs delay, & Test done immediately after Stage B In AB-T, choice evenly divided between A and B In A-BT, all dogs chose B then searched A

9. More recent information weighted more heavily time27hrs ago26hrs ago25hrs ago24hrs ago good/badbad good time25hrs ago24hrs ago2hrs ago1hrs ago good/badbad good E good = (1/25 + 1/24)/(1/27 + 1/26 + 1/25 + 1/24) =.52 E good = (1/2 + 1/1)/(1/25 + 1/24 + 1/2 + 1/1) =.95

10. And why do I care? One scientist’s cognitive experiment is another dog’s foraging decision... Each time must balance... where food was last time possibly new information (e.g., person pointing at different bowl) Not a life or death decision

11. Decisions, decisions... Do I go where she is pointing, or do I go where food was the last time? Conservative (go with the safe choice) vs. Explorer (ok to explore) A dog’s willingness to experiment is a function of many things, but experience can have a big effect... Is the dog rewarded for trying something new, or punished? Rewarding what you want to see, “ignoring” what you don’t, can help make your dog a confident explorer Punishment based learning tends to produce conservative dogs... Hare, B. and M. Tomasello (2005). "Human-like social skills in dogs?" Trends in Cognitive Science 9(9): 339- 444

12. Using human gestures to guide behavior

13. Why is pointing such a big deal? Pointing is a communicative gesture Assumption that when an animal responds to a pointing gesture they are doing so because they understand it to be a communicative signal. Differences in species’ responses to pointing gestures is assumed to reflect differential understanding that they are communicative signals. Is differential response innate (social cognition gene) or learned?

14. My response The interesting question is not whether wolves or dogs can do it, but what is it about dogs that makes it so easy for them to respond to gestures and so hard for animals such as wolves? False dichotomy between innate and learned. My interest is in understanding what are the innate components that makes the learning easy? Be that as it may, people have spent a great deal of time and energy addressing other questions...

15. Pointing gestures as cues Experiments do try to control for olfactory cues Hare, B. and M. Tomasello (2005). "Human-like social skills in dogs?" Trends in Cognitive Science 9(9): 339-444 Miklosi, A. and K. Soproni (2006). "A comparative understanding of the human pointing gesture." Animal Cognition 9: 81-93.

16. Things to note about experiments Small number of subjects with repeated trials Criteria is statistically different than chance Results are typically aggregated Typically subjects are adult pet dogs recruited from local training clubs, friends, etc.

17. Sample size and the pooling fallacy... Intuitively, the bigger the sample size, the more representative your sample will be: by representative, I mean it has a mean and variance that accurately reflects the population. But it needs to be the right kind of bigger. Which sample will be more representative... Test 10 different dogs each of a different breed & measure how long it takes them to destroy a new “Destruct-Not” toy. Test 10 different dogs from “toothless terrier manor” & measure how long it takes them to destroy a new “Destruct-Not” toy. Test “Chomper” 10 times & measure how long it takes him each time to destroy a new “Destruct-Not” toy.

18. Hare 2002

19. The difference between dogs & chimps was startling, and the question was why? Hare, B., M. Brown, et al. (2002). "The domestication of social cognition in dogs." Science 298: 1634-1636. 9 out of 11 dogs used cue vs. 2 out of 11 for chimps

20. Hare’s Three Hypotheses (2002) “Canids in general are unusually flexible in the types of social information they can exploit” “Domestic dogs... have learned their skills during their individual ontogenies” “Selection pressure on dogs during process of domestication for specific skills of social cognition and communication with humans”

21. Dogs performed differently than ‘socialized’ wolves This suggested to Hare that it wasn’t an ability common to canids Hare, B., M. Brown, et al. (2002). "The domestication of social cognition in dogs." Science 298: 1634-1636. No wolf performed above chance using any cue. 7 dogs used GPT, 5 used GP, 4 used P to find food above chance. 3 dogs used all 3 cues, 3 dogs used 2, and 1 dog used just one. Gaze, point, touch Gaze, point PointControl

22. Litter raised pups did the same as family raised pups This suggested to Hare that it wasn’t developmental Hare, B., M. Brown, et al. (2002). "The domestication of social cognition in dogs." Science 298: 1634-1636. Differences aren’t significant, but interesting that litter-reared did better than family raised.

23. 9-12 week pups did as well as 17-24 week pups This suggested to Hare that there wasn’t a learned component

24. Hare’s big conclusion “These findings suggest that during the process of domestication, dogs have been selected for a set of social-cognitive abilities that enable them to communicate with humans in unique ways.”

25. Things to think about... Are there flaws with the experimental design and analysis? There is an assumption that socialized wolves are the same as socialized dogs. Is this valid? There is an assumption that extensive contact with humans prior to 8-12 weeks is required for pups to preferentially attend to humans. Is this valid? There is an assumption that social learning doesn’t occur prior to 8-12 weeks. Is this valid? There is an assumption that you can describe a generic pet dog, and that one can generalize across breeds. Is this valid?

26. Soproni (2002)

27. Soproni, 2002 tried to characterize performance Soproni, K., A. Miklosi, et al. (2002). "Dogs' (Canis familiaris) Responsiveness to Human Pointing Gestures." Journal of Comparative Psychology 116(1): 27.

28. Soproni, cont... Standing in middle Standing near one bowl or another Soproni, K., A. Miklosi, et al. (2002). "Dogs' (Canis familiaris) Responsiveness to Human Pointing Gestures." Journal of Comparative Psychology 116(1): 27.

29. Soproni... Results Hand position more important than movement static gesture vs. dynamic gesture When gesture isn’t clear uses body position as a cue

30. Miklosi (2003)

31. wolves with ‘comparable socialization’ learned to use cue One wolf was 80% accurate using distal pointing Miklosi, A., E. Kubinyi, et al. (2003). "A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do." Current Biology 13(9): 763. Note: axis is incorrectly labeled

32. Median duration of glances at person Dogs looked back at person sooner & longer This suggested to Miklosi that dogs were genetically biased to attend to people Miklosi, A., E. Kubinyi, et al. (2003). "A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do." Current Biology 13(9): 763. Median latency before looking at person Note wide variance (i.e., some dogs did persist at task & others gave up right away)

33. Miklosi’s interpretation Wolves aren’t as good at using human cues as dogs because of “their decreased willingness to look at the human” Conversely, “preferential looking at the human seems to be a genetic predisposition of dogs”... at this is the “foundation on which developmentally canalized complex communicative interactions can emerge between man and dog” In other words, a genetic bias to look at people was a precursor to the co- evolution of dog-human communicative skills. Miklosi, A., E. Kubinyi, et al. (2003). "A Simple Reason for a Big Difference: Wolves Do Not Look Back at Humans, but Dogs Do." Current Biology 13(9): 763.

34. Hare 2005

35. Hare’s statement: “dogs have an unusual ability for reading human communicative gestures... seems to have evolved during domestication” Hare’s question: “unclear whether this evolution occurred as a result of direct selection for this ability... or as a correlated by-product of selection against fear and aggression toward humans” Decided to test hypothesis using domesticated foxes that were explicitly bred to have reduced fear and aggression toward humans Hare, B., I. Plyusnina, et al. (2005). "Social Cognitive Evolution in Captive Foxes Is a Correlated By-Product of Experimental Domestication." Current Biology 15: 226-230.

36. Pups & domesticated fox kits performed similarly This suggested to Hare that this skill was a by product of selection for tameness Hare, B., I. Plyusnina, et al. (2005). "Social Cognitive Evolution in Captive Foxes Is a Correlated By-Product of Experimental Domestication." Current Biology 15: 226-230. Pups & fox kits between 8-16 weeks

37. Temperament of farm foxes may interfere with performance This experiment was consistent with Hare’s view that this skill was a side-effect of breeding for temperament Hare, B., I. Plyusnina, et al. (2005). "Social Cognitive Evolution in Captive Foxes Is a Correlated By-Product of Experimental Domestication." Current Biology 15: 226-230.

38. Hare’s conclusions... 2 alternative explanations for dog’s ability to read human signals Communication hypothesis: this ability was directly selected for during domestication Correlated by product hypothesis: this ability is simply a by-product of selection for tameness He believes his results support correlated by-product hypothesis... Nothing was being selected for other than tameness (e.g., ability to read human cues) and yet foxes did as well as pet dog pups

39. Is this a general feature of domestication?

40. Contrary to what one might think, cats pay attention too... Miklosi, A., P. Pongracz, et al. (2005). "A Comparative Study of the Use of Visual Communicative Signals in Interactions Between Dogs (Canis Familiaris) and Humans and Cats (Felis catus) and Humans." Journal of Comparative Psychology 119(2): 179-186.

41. Wobber (2005)

42. Wobber’s two wave model... First wave Reduction in reactivity set the stage for enhanced ability to use human cues This occurred as dogs evolved from wolves, largely as a function of natural selection Second wave Artificial selection resulted in enhanced ability to use human cues and/or, breeds with differential ability to use specific kinds of human cues. Wobber, V. (2005). The evolution of cooperative signal comprehension in the domestic dog (Canis Famiaris). Department of Anthropology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University. Bachelor of Arts 115.

43. Wave 1: tested NGSD vs. ‘newer’ breeds Are NGSD really a primitive breed? Wobber, V. (2005). The evolution of cooperative signal comprehension in the domestic dog (Canis Famiaris). Department of Anthropology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University. Bachelor of Arts 115.

44. Results suggested both wave model Note difference between 2 groups on GP vs. Block Wobber, V. (2005). The evolution of cooperative signal comprehension in the domestic dog (Canis Famiaris). Department of Anthropology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University. Bachelor of Arts 115.

45. Huskies and Retrievers were considered ‘working dogs’, whereas Basenjis and Toys were considered ‘non-working’ Huskies and Basenjis considered ‘wolf-like’ breeds, whereas Toys & Retrievers considered non-wolf-like. Note variance in performance across dogs and breeds... Compared cue use across several groups Wobber, V. (2005). The evolution of cooperative signal comprehension in the domestic dog (Canis Famiaris). Department of Anthropology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University. Bachelor of Arts 115.

46. Modest evidence, at best of a difference Wobber, V. (2005). The evolution of cooperative signal comprehension in the domestic dog (Canis Famiaris). Department of Anthropology. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University. Bachelor of Arts 115.

47. McKinley

48. Tested ability of horses and dogs to use pointing & gaze cues... This isn’t the cognitive horse, but let’s just say that the horses didn’t distinguish them on this task. “Working gundogs with specialized training used pointing more successfully than pet dogs, and gundog breeds performed better than non-gundog breeds” In other words, depends on genes, development and learning...

49. McKinley et al McKinley, J. and T. Sambrook (2000). "Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis Familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus)." Animal Cognition 3: 13-22.

50. Genes and ‘learning to learn’ may matter!!! McKinley, J. and T. Sambrook (2000). "Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis Familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus)." Animal Cognition 3: 13-22. Working gun dogs improved dramatically

51. Mckinley The point is that there is a variance in performance from dog to dog that is often masked by aggregated numbers... The variance is the result of (not surprisingly) genes development learning

52. Representation...

53. Example: a bad storm is coming Immediate perception: wind and rain Correlated perception: cows lying down, gulls inland... Shallow representation: “red sky at morn, sailors take warn” Deep represention: “a low off of Cape Hatteras will intensify and move north hitting our area by evening.

54. The 64 Million Dollar Question When you observe behavior, what kind of mental representations underly it? Is it a representation of only the immediate perception? a weakly correlated feature of the world? features of the problem that captures just enough to be useful a deep representation that captures the problem?

55. The cognitive bias Deeper, more complete representations are “better” and indicate greater intelligence... My bias is to focus on cognitive bang for the buck. There is value & elegance in “cheap” representations that work just well enough to get the job done, mostly. More about the minimum needed to get by as opposed to how hard you work :-)

56. Object Permanence

57. Object Permanence... Commonsense about how objects behave in the world... presumably require building and using representations in the brain Have a developmental time course (aspects of OP come on line in a predictable sequence) Lots of work comparing sophistication of OP across species

58. Object Permanence Things we “know” to be true about the world come on line in predictable developmental order... Stages 1 & 2: objects cease to exist if can’t be perceived, but can track moving objects. Stage 3: Can pick out partially obscured object (if part of the object is there, the entire object must be there)

59. Object Permanence Stage 4: objects permanent in space and time... 4a: hidden object recovered if search starts before object completely obscured. 4b: hidden object recovered A-not-B error prevalent: go to last “found” location, not the observed hidden location. See it hidden repeatedly behind A Then see it hidden behind B, but still go to A

60. Object Permanence Stage 5: Mastery of Visible Displacement Stage 5a: A-not-B error disappears Stage 5b: Successive hidden displacements

61. Object Permanence Stage 6: Invisible Displacement Subject sees object hidden in a container Container is placed behind a screen/box and object is removed from container. Container is brought out, subject is shown that it is empty and container returned to some location. Can the subject infer the location of the hidden object?

62. Development of OP Gagnon, S. and F. Dore (1994). "Cross-sectional study of object permanence in domestic puppies (canis familiaris)." Journal of Comparative Psychology 108(3): 220-232. Many species demonstrate object permanence fewer seem to demonstrate invisible displacement Consistent pattern of development...

63. What’s the big deal? Object permanence and invisible displacement used as evidence for representational thought... Can they hold the “image” or “memory” of an object or event that they can’t directly perceive and use it to guide their behavior? It seems to be possible to create experiments to test for object permanence in other species, e.g., dogs... Researchers have an innate desire, it seems, to measure animals on the basis of what humans can do...

64. An aside (well a rant)... There is a little thing going on here that has its roots in “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. The implication... infants are less cognitively sophisticated than adults, so other species must “think” more like infants than adults. Bruce’s response: no, animals think the way they “need” to think in order to solve the problems that face them in their ecological niche. There is no reason to suppose they think like infants.

65. Collier-Baker on visible and invisible displacement

66. The basic set-up... Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421.

67. Invisible displacement protocol Subject sees object hidden in a container Container is placed behind one of 3 screens/boxes and object is removed from container. Container is brought out, subject is shown that it is empty and container returned to some location. Can the subject infer the location of the hidden object? G&D suggested adult dogs can solve this problem...

68. Gagnon & Dore on development of Object- Permanence in Puppies... Tested 70 puppies from 4 weeks to 9 months Visible displacement seemed to come on line around 5 weeks and fully in place by 8 weeks. Older pups seemed to learn rapidly to check last location where object was hidden, and had more flexible search strategies (aided by learning) Some evidence of invisible displacement by 11 months Statistically significant difference, but not nailing it by any stretch of the imagination.

69. The big idea... Could Gagnon & Dore’s results be explained by the dog using “local rules” rather than a deep or even shallow understanding of invisible displacement? The only “slightly better than chance” performance was the “smoking gun”... Was there something about the experimental setup that the dogs were using to inform their choice?

70. Local Rule Learning... “Local rule learning refers to the chance discovery of an action that leads to success on a task, which is then repeated” - Collier-Baker In a sense, the animal is taking advantage of a regularity in the context that may be only weakly correlated with success, but beats “just rolling the dice”

71. Protocol for experiment one Starting position of ball and the target box was random, never the same more than two times in a row... Starting and ending position of displacement device random, but never “starting or ending in the same position more than twice consecutively” Started and ended in the same position Closed end faced dog

72. Experiment One... Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. Repeat of Gagnon and Dore Dogs have visible displacement nailed Better than chance, but let’s just say they deserve a “Gentleman’s C”

73. Rule out 3 local rules... “Use unconscious cue provided by experimenter” hide face & upper body via a screen “Go to last box visited by displacement device” after showing empty device go to another box “Go to box adjacent to displacement device” random ending location but never adjacent

74. Experiment Two Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. Significantly above chance Significantly below chance 92 % of the error involved searching a box adjacent to device

75. Experiment Two Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. Breakdown of previous results indicating success or failure when device was adjacent to target box and when it wasn’t Note difference in success when device is adjacent vs. when it isn’t...

76. Adjacency matters Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. “Stark difference in performance levels on adjacent and non- adjacent displacement trials across all four conditions”

77. Removing the displacement device was a major bummer... Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. 43% of dogs in the no displacement device trials either stood in front of experimenter or stared at displacement device

78. Experiment Four: removing the displacement device Collier-Baker, E., J. M. Davis, et al. (2004). "Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?" Journal of Comparative Psychology 118(4): 421. “Removing the displacement device did not push the dogs into using a representational strategy; in fact their performance was diminished. These results suggest that dogs rely heavily on the displacement device to guide their search”

79. So... In the invisible displacement tests, dogs seemed to use a feature of the environment to guide their search and by doing so they were able to do better on a task that otherwise they seemed to have no clue how to perform otherwise... It wasn’t a feature that people use to solve the task, or would even think of using The feature had nothing to do with the intrinsic problem In the next experiments, pulling on the string, dogs pulled on the string that exited closest to the ball, and tended to focus their attention on where it exited the box

80. So... While the studies referred to the dogs using “local rules”, just think of them as “simple but reliable enough” rules... SBRE rule: start search with boxes adjacent to displacement device What is “reliable enough?” Better than chance, or expected benefit is greater than the expected cost...

81. Osthaus

82. The big idea... Tested dogs for their apparent understanding of means-ends connections when pulling on a string to retrieve food... Experiment involved configurations of 2 strings, only one of which was actually attached to food. Tested which string dogs pulled on first... correct string, or string closest to food

83. Osthaus setup Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means- end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47. Food Red or Blue colored string

84. The Experiments Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47. Do they yank the right chain?

85. When only one string All dogs able to get treat & got faster each trial & transferred from one case to next. Short string, some dogs just used tongue Generally, pawed at string, between exit & cube. Only 2 grabbed wooden cube In diagonal case, pawed at spot where string exited box Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47.

86. Two parallel strings, perpendicular to box Chose correct string at better than chance levels, but worse than in Exp. 1 Better performance when strings close together? Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47.

87. Two parallel strings, acute angle to box Significantly better performance on exterior vs. overlap (11/12 dogs chose exterior string on more than 1/2 of trials) Proximity error/behavior seen: paw at string that exits closest to food...? Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47.

88. Two crossed strings Dogs retrieved food, but chose correct string significantly below chance Proximity error/behavior No improvement over trials Osthaus, B., S. E. G. Lea, et al. (2005). "Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) fail to show understanding of means-end connections in a string-pulling task." Animal Cognition 8: 37-47.

89. Conclusions... Dogs in the experiment acted as if they were following the following SBRE rule: Paw at string closest to food where it exits the box (closest point to food...) Similar behavior to what Adler & Adler saw (and you will see when you read it. No evidence of deeper understanding of task, or of learning to modify rule

90. Questions... A couple of assumptions are worth contemplating... The visual cues are salient to dog (either perceptually, or behaviorially) They get the treat no matter what, so what is the motivation to “ace” the test, is it only retrieval time, and pawing may feel good in any event... Understanding vs. performance (can’t vs. whateva)

91. But note... If one assumes that they use the SBRE rule of “pull on the string closest to the food at the closest point to the food” Then, the kind of observational learning seen in the Adler & Adler experiment would suffice to scaffold learning this rule.