I saw where you have been-The topography of human demonstration affects dogs' search patterns and perseverative errors

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Performance in object search tasks is not only influenced by the subjects' object permanence ability. For example, ostensive cues of the human manipulating the target markedly affect dogs' choices. However, the interference between the target's location and the spatial cues of the human hiding the object is still unknown. In a five-location visible displacement task, the experimental groups differed in the hiding route of the experimenter. In the 'direct' condition he moved straight towards the actual location, hid the object and returned to the dog. In the 'indirect' conditions, he additionally walked behind each screen before returning. The two 'indirect' conditions differed from each other in that the human either visited the previously baited locations before (proactive interference) or after (retroactive interference) hiding the object. In the 'indirect' groups, dogs' performance was significantly lower than in the 'direct' group, demonstrating that for dogs, in an ostensive context, spatial cues of the hider are as important as the observed location of the target. Based on their incorrect choices, dogs were most attracted to the previously baited locations that the human visited after hiding the object in the actual trial. This underlines the importance of retroactive interference in multiple choice tasks.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51-62
Number of pages12
JournalBehavioural Processes
Volume125
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2016

Fingerprint

topography
Dogs
dogs
Cues
Aptitude

Keywords

  • Ostensive cues
  • Perseveration
  • Retroactive interference
  • Spatial cues
  • Visible displacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Behavioral Neuroscience

Cite this

@article{cddd12a6e69641938cdc86646cb176b2,
title = "I saw where you have been-The topography of human demonstration affects dogs' search patterns and perseverative errors",
abstract = "Performance in object search tasks is not only influenced by the subjects' object permanence ability. For example, ostensive cues of the human manipulating the target markedly affect dogs' choices. However, the interference between the target's location and the spatial cues of the human hiding the object is still unknown. In a five-location visible displacement task, the experimental groups differed in the hiding route of the experimenter. In the 'direct' condition he moved straight towards the actual location, hid the object and returned to the dog. In the 'indirect' conditions, he additionally walked behind each screen before returning. The two 'indirect' conditions differed from each other in that the human either visited the previously baited locations before (proactive interference) or after (retroactive interference) hiding the object. In the 'indirect' groups, dogs' performance was significantly lower than in the 'direct' group, demonstrating that for dogs, in an ostensive context, spatial cues of the hider are as important as the observed location of the target. Based on their incorrect choices, dogs were most attracted to the previously baited locations that the human visited after hiding the object in the actual trial. This underlines the importance of retroactive interference in multiple choice tasks.",
keywords = "Ostensive cues, Perseveration, Retroactive interference, Spatial cues, Visible displacement",
author = "Andr{\'a}s P{\'e}ter and J. Top{\'a}l and A. Mikl{\'o}si and P. Pongr{\'a}cz",
year = "2016",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.beproc.2016.02.005",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "51--62",
journal = "Behavioural Processes",
issn = "0376-6357",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - I saw where you have been-The topography of human demonstration affects dogs' search patterns and perseverative errors

AU - Péter, András

AU - Topál, J.

AU - Miklósi, A.

AU - Pongrácz, P.

PY - 2016/4/1

Y1 - 2016/4/1

N2 - Performance in object search tasks is not only influenced by the subjects' object permanence ability. For example, ostensive cues of the human manipulating the target markedly affect dogs' choices. However, the interference between the target's location and the spatial cues of the human hiding the object is still unknown. In a five-location visible displacement task, the experimental groups differed in the hiding route of the experimenter. In the 'direct' condition he moved straight towards the actual location, hid the object and returned to the dog. In the 'indirect' conditions, he additionally walked behind each screen before returning. The two 'indirect' conditions differed from each other in that the human either visited the previously baited locations before (proactive interference) or after (retroactive interference) hiding the object. In the 'indirect' groups, dogs' performance was significantly lower than in the 'direct' group, demonstrating that for dogs, in an ostensive context, spatial cues of the hider are as important as the observed location of the target. Based on their incorrect choices, dogs were most attracted to the previously baited locations that the human visited after hiding the object in the actual trial. This underlines the importance of retroactive interference in multiple choice tasks.

AB - Performance in object search tasks is not only influenced by the subjects' object permanence ability. For example, ostensive cues of the human manipulating the target markedly affect dogs' choices. However, the interference between the target's location and the spatial cues of the human hiding the object is still unknown. In a five-location visible displacement task, the experimental groups differed in the hiding route of the experimenter. In the 'direct' condition he moved straight towards the actual location, hid the object and returned to the dog. In the 'indirect' conditions, he additionally walked behind each screen before returning. The two 'indirect' conditions differed from each other in that the human either visited the previously baited locations before (proactive interference) or after (retroactive interference) hiding the object. In the 'indirect' groups, dogs' performance was significantly lower than in the 'direct' group, demonstrating that for dogs, in an ostensive context, spatial cues of the hider are as important as the observed location of the target. Based on their incorrect choices, dogs were most attracted to the previously baited locations that the human visited after hiding the object in the actual trial. This underlines the importance of retroactive interference in multiple choice tasks.

KW - Ostensive cues

KW - Perseveration

KW - Retroactive interference

KW - Spatial cues

KW - Visible displacement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84957831124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84957831124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.02.005

DO - 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.02.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 26869220

AN - SCOPUS:84957831124

VL - 125

SP - 51

EP - 62

JO - Behavioural Processes

JF - Behavioural Processes

SN - 0376-6357

ER -