Simple SummaryAnimal motion is characterised by predictable kinematics according to their body morphology and the laws of gravity. This pattern of movement, called biological motion, is traditionally studied using animated displays created by placing a small number of light dots on the major joints of living beings. Previous studies have shown that several animal species can reliably discriminate dot displays depicting an animal walking, and their performance is impeded when the display is turned upside-down and is variably affected when each dot is displaced to disrupt the global biological arrangement. In this study, we investigated this phenomenon in dogs during the presentation of dot displays depicting humans or dogs walking. Our findings showed that dogs preferred to view the display which depicted an upright dog, regardless of its global arrangement, and had no significant preferences when displays depicting humans were presented. This suggests that dogs’ sensitivity to biological motion depends mainly on the presence of dot motion that moves in accordance with gravity. Also, our findings suggest that, despite dogs’ extensive exposure to human motion, they are not sensitive to the bipedal motion presented in the human dot displays.AbstractVisual perception remains an understudied area of dog cognition, particularly the perception of biological motion where the small amount of previous research has created an unclear impression regarding dogs’ visual preference towards different types of point-light displays. To date, no thorough investigation has been conducted regarding which aspects of the motion contained in point-light displays attract dogs. To test this, pet dogs (N = 48) were presented with pairs of point-light displays with systematic manipulation of motion features (i.e., upright or inverted orientation, coherent or scrambled configuration, human or dog species). Results revealed a significant effect of inversion, with dogs directing significantly longer looking time towards upright than inverted dog point-light displays; no effect was found for scrambling or the scrambling-inversion interaction. No looking time bias was found when dogs were presented with human point-light displays, regardless of their orientation or configuration. The results of the current study imply that dogs’ visual preference is driven by the motion of individual dots in accordance with gravity, rather than the point-light display’s global arrangement, regardless their long exposure to human motion.

When a cue reliably predicts an outcome, the associability of that cue will change. Associative theories of learning propose this change will persist even when the same cue is paired with a different outcome. These theories, however, do not extend the same privilege to an outcome; an outcome's learning history is deemed to have no bearing on subsequent new learning involving that outcome. Two experiments were conducted which sought to investigate this assumption inherent in these theories using a serial letter-prediction task. In both experiments, participants were exposed, in Stage 1, to a predictable outcome ('X') and an unpredictable outcome ('Z'). In Stage 2, participants were exposed to the same outcomes preceded by novel cues which were equally predictive of both outcomes. Both experiments revealed that participants' learning towards the previously predictable outcome was more rapid in Stage 2 than the previously unpredicted outcome. The implications of these results for theories of associative learning are discussed.

Recent studies have showed that domestic dogs are only scantly susceptible to visual illusions, suggesting that the perceptual mechanisms might be different in humans and dogs. However, to date, none of these studies have utilized illusions that are linked to quantity discrimination. In the current study, we tested whether dogs are susceptible to a linear version of the Solitaire illusion, a robust numerosity illusion experienced by most humans. In the first experiment, we tested dogs’ ability to discriminate items in a 0.67 and 0.75 numerical ratio. The results showed that dogs’ quantity discrimination abilities fall in between these two ratios. In Experiment 2, we presented the dogs with the Solitaire illusion pattern using a spontaneous procedure. No evidence supporting any numerosity misperception was found. This conclusion was replicated in Experiment 3, where we manipulated dogs’ initial experience with the stimuli and their contrast with the background. The lack of dogs’ susceptibility to the Solitaire illusion suggests that numerical estimation of dogs is not influenced by the spatial arrangement of the items to be enumerated. In view of the existing evidence, the effect may be extended to dogs’ quantitative abilities at large.

Impulsive choices reflect an individual’s tendency to prefer a smaller immediate reward over a larger delayed one. Here, we have developed a behavioural test which can be easily applied to assess impulsive choices in dogs. Dogs were trained to associate one of two equidistant locations with a larger food amount when a smaller amount was presented in the other location, then the smaller amount was placed systematically closer to the dog. Choices of the smaller amount, as a function of distance, were considered a measure of the dog’s tendency to make impulsive choices. All dogs (N = 48) passed the learning phase and completed the entire assessment in under 1 h. Choice of the smaller food amount increased as this was placed closer to the dog. Choices were independent from food motivation, past training, and speed of learning the training phase; supporting the specificity of the procedure. Females showed a higher probability of making impulsive choices, in agreement with analogue sex differences found in human and rodent studies, and supporting the external validity of our assessment. Overall, the findings support the practical applicability and represent a first indication of the validity of this method, making it suitable for investigations into impulsivity in dogs.

No abstract

No abstract

Learning permits even relatively uninteresting stimuli to capture attention if they are established as predictors of important outcomes. Associative theories explain this “learned predictiveness” effect by positing that attention is a function of the relative strength of the association between stimuli and outcomes. In three experiments we show that this explanation is incomplete: learned overt visual-attention is not a function of the relative strength of the association between stimuli and an outcome. In three experiments, human participants were exposed to triplets of stimuli that comprised (i) a target (which defined correct responding), (ii) a stimulus which was perfectly correlated with the presentation of the target and (iii) a stimulus which was uncorrelated with the presentation of the target. Participants’ knowledge of the associative relationship between the correlated/uncorrelated stimuli and the target was always good. However, eye-tracking revealed that an attentional bias towards the correlated stimulus only developed when it AND target-relevant responding preceded the target stimulus. We propose a framework in which attentional changes are modulated during learning as a function the relative strength of the association between stimuli and the task-relevant response, rather than an association between stimuli and the task-relevant outcome.

No abstract