Tampilkan postingan dengan label whats. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label whats. Tampilkan semua postingan

Less Talk More Touch Whats Your Dog Saying to You

Guest post by: Erica Feuerbacher, PhD, of Carroll College Anthrozoology Program (Facebook)
via Flickr creative commons

Hi Mia and Julie,
 

Like you and your readers, much of my energy is devoted to my dogs’ happiness. I can identify a plethora of things they do that make me happy and I want to know what makes them happy; I explore this in my research. What types of human interactions do dogs prefer and under what circumstances? Knowing this might help us understand how to produce and maintain better bonds with our dogs. 

Two common ways of interacting with our dogs are petting or verbally praising them. My collaborator, Clive Wynne (@caninecognition), and I decided to ask dogs which of these interactions they prefer. 

Schematic and dimensions of the room arrangement for concurrent choice procedures. The drawing is approximately to scale and the room dimensions based on those of the room at the shelter.

We gave dogs a choice between two concurrently available options and measured whether they spent more time with one than the other—and how much more—as common way to measure preference. One assistant provided petting whenever the dog was near her, and another assistant provided vocal praise whenever the dog was near her. The dog was free to interact (or not interact) with either person for ten minutes. To test whether the dog really preferred the specific interaction and not just that specific person, we had the two assistants switch interactions halfway through the session. That is, the person providing petting switched to providing only vocal praise and vice versa. If the dog preferred petting in the first five minutes of the session, would the dog switch to the other person who was now providing petting? 




 Twinky, a shelter dog, receiving petting from the assistant on the left, but soon alternates to the assistant on the right who previously provided vocal praise but now provides petting.


We tested shelter dogs and two groups of owned dogs: in one group both assistants were strangers, which was the same as the shelter dogs, but in the second group, one assistant was the dog’s owner. This allowed us to test whether the owner providing these interactions would change dogs’ preferences.
 

Across the board, dogs preferred petting to vocal praise. This difference was most pronounced in shelter dogs (out of the first five-minute period, dogs spent an average of 3.5 minutes with the petting person and only 7 seconds with vocal praise person). This result, however, held up across groups, even when the owner was one of the assistants and even when the owner was the assistant providing vocal praise. Additionally, when the assistant providing petting switched to vocal praise, dogs left …some immediately! When they found the other person was now providing petting, they stuck with her. Dogs even left their owner when the owner switched to vocal praise! 



Patsy, a shelter dog, receiving petting from the assistant on the right but soon alternates to the assistant on the left who previously provided vocal praise but now provides petting. 
 
Dogs clearly prefer petting to vocal praise, but what if vocal praise was the only game in town? Maybe vocal praise is good as long as there isn’t something better available. We tested this by giving dogs only one alternative at a time and measuring how much time they spent when the person provided petting and when the person provided vocal praise. The results were the same: dogs remained with the person providing petting but spent very little time when that person provided only vocal praise. In fact, we found that dogs spent as little time with the person for vocal praise as when the person was ignoring the dog! To dogs, vocal praise was equivalent to being ignored. On the other hand, we also tested dogs that received eight three-minute sessions of petting and those dogs spent almost all their time with the person providing petting, even in Session 8. There was no evidence that dogs get tired of petting; as long as you are willing to pet them, they are willing to be petted!
 

Our results point to the importance of touch or our pets and for us. Petting is an easy way to relate to a dog and help build a relationship. One thing to note is that in our study dogs were free to approach or leave the assistant—that is we never forced the dogs to receive petting. So, as much as dogs like petting, don’t rush out and pet every dog you meet! You need to allow the dog to come to you to be petted and to leave when it wants. 



Scorch, an owned dog, receiving petting from the assistant on the left who is Scorchs owner. When his owner switches from providing petting to providing only vocal praise, he soon alternates to the assistant on the right, a stranger, who previously provided vocal praise but now provides petting.
 
It was surprising that dogs did not prefer vocal praise—even when it was the only interaction available. We often get the comment from people, “Well, my dog loves when I talk to him!” We have to remind them that we only praised the dogs whereas most people praise the dog and simultaneously do something else really fun (like petting). We also praised the dogs for a long time—as long as the dog stayed near the assistant. This is harder than it sounds and worth trying—a few dogs did spend a good amount of time with the vocal praise assistant and that poor assistant had to praise the dog for few minutes on end!
 

Now its your turn... Put YOUR dogs preferences under the Microscope
You can certainly do a mini version of our research at home: talk to your dog for an extended period without doing anything else—don’t grab the leash or pet him or reach for a treat. Does he stick around? Does he wander off? Dogs do learn to love certain words, like “walk,” “cookie,” or “good girl,” but those are only meaningful because they are usually associated with other good things—like going for a walk, getting a treat, or being petted.
 

What I enjoy about my research is it gives us the dog’s perspective and asks the dog, “what do you like?” rather than assuming we know what they like. Our results regarding vocal praise are really interesting given how much we talk to our dogs; perhaps all our chattering is more for us than for them and if you really want to communicate with your dog, you should try petting. 

~ ~ ~


Dr. Erica Feuerbacher joined the faculty of the Anthrozoology program at Carroll College in 2014, after completing her Ph.D. at the University of Florida in the Canine Cognition and Behavior Lab. Her research goal is to enhance our understanding of the dog-human relationship to improve the welfare of both.       
Further reading:
Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. (2015). Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures. Behavioural processes110, 47-59.[Open Access PDF until Jan 2016]

Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. (2014). Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior101(3), 385-405.

Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. (2012). RELATIVE EFFICACY OF HUMAN SOCIAL INTERACTION AND FOOD AS REINFORCERS FOR DOMESTIC DOGS AND HAND?REARED WOLVES. Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior98(1), 105-129.

Udell, M. A., Lord, K., Feuerbacher, E. N., & Wynne, C. D. (2014). A Dog’s-Eye View of Canine Cognition. In Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior (pp. 221-240). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

© 2015 Erica Feuerbacher | Do You Believe in Dog?
Feuerbacher, E., & Wynne, C. (2015). Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures Behavioural Processes, 110, 47-5 - See more at: http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2015/01/do-dogs-prefer-petting-or-praise.html#sthash.hdkEDN4o.dpu
Feuerbacher, E., & Wynne, C. (2015). Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures Behavioural Processes, 110, 47-59 DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.019 - See more at: http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2015/01/do-dogs-prefer-petting-or-praise.html#sthash.hdkEDN4o.dpuf
Feuerbacher, E., & Wynne, C. (2015). Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures Behavioural Processes, 110, 47-5 - See more at: http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2015/01/do-dogs-prefer-petting-or-praise.html#sthash.hdkEDN4o.dpuf

Read More..

Pass me the dog book

(Source)
Hi Mia!

So many books. Written about dogs. Most I see at the airport, memoirs of someone’s ‘very special relationship’ with a very special dog, another about dogs ‘racing in the rain,’ (seems like it would be a pretty short book, or would make a better YouTube video), and some even feature a dog as a private eye (many are fans of this one, see Patricia McConnell’s review).

Sometimes while sitting in the living room I joke with my boyfriend, “Pass me the dog book." Maybe I find this WAY more funny than he does, but like you, I am surrounded by dog books! Right in front of me is The Domestic Dog (Serpell, ed), and to my right I can see Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog (Scott and Fuller). Beneath that is What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs (Warren).


Now we’ll all be surrounded by one more dog book, Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior The Scientific Study of Canis familiaris! This one I am particularly biased towards because it is edited by Alexandra Horowitz, and I co-authored one of the chapters with her. As an edited volume, Horowitz -- and her way with words and dogs (she authored Inside of a Dog) -- stands behind the text, but each chapter has its own focus and tone. The book is in three parts:
  • Part I covers the perceptual abilities of dogs and the effect of interbreeding
  • Part II includes observational and experimental results from studies of social cognition – such as learning and social referencing – and physical cognition in canids
  • Part III summarizes the work in the field to date, reviewing various conceptual and methodological approaches, and testing anthropomorphisms with regard to dogs
  • The final chapter discusses the practical application of behavioral and cognitive results to promote animal welfare


Here’s a look at a few chapters in detail: 

Canine Olfaction: Scent, Sign, and Situation
Think you know canine olfaction? Think again! This chapter by Gadbois and Reeve discusses topics like “zoosemiotics" and “canine olfactory psychoethology.” Yeah! (and yes, the words “peemail” and “Nosebook” appear in this chapter). More about Gadbois and his work here.

Dog Breeds and Their Behavior
This chapter by James Serpell and Deborah Duffy is probably of interest to many (and it is already listed on the book website as “popular content”). They note that while there are some “breed-associated temperament traits, such as, German shorthaired pointers deliberately selected for nervousness/fearfulness,” it’s generally more complex than that on an individual basis. More about Duffy here, and Serpell here (and Serpell edited the 1995 book, The Domestic Dog).

Measuring the Behaviour of Dogs: An Ethological Approach
What do ‘dog cognition’ studies actually look like? This chapter, by Claudia Fugazza and Ádam Miklósi, takes readers on a behind-the-scenes tour of research in practice with topics like single-subject studies (dogs like Chase, Rico, Betsy etc.), comparative studies, and the presence or absence of owners during cognitive tests. For a further look into dog cognition studies, check out http://www.cmdbase.org. It’s a “web-based system that facilitates the exchange of videos among students of animal behavior.” More about Fugazza here, and Miklósi and the Family Dog Project here.

(Source)
Looking at Dogs: Moving from Anthropocentrism to Canid Umwelt  
This chapter begins, "As a companion to humans, the domestic dog is naturally interpreted from a human-centered (anthropocentric) perspective." In this chapter, Alexandra Horowitz and I cover recent research into attributions to dogs, particularly the "guilty look" and inequity aversion, as well as factors that can impact peoples interpretation of "human" in dog. We also investigate anthropocentric and canid-centric elements of our own and others’ research. Horowitz Dog Cognition Lab here. 

The remaining chapters cover:
  • Marc Bekoff: The Significance of Ethological Studies: Playing and Peeing
  • Ludwig Huber, Friederike Range & Zsófia Virányi: Dog Imitation and Its Possible Origins (Clever Dog Lab)
  • Emanuela Prato-Previde & Sarah Marshall-Pescini: Social Looking in the Domestic Dog (website)
  • Alejandra Rossi, Daniel Smedema, Francisco J. Parada & Colin Allen: Visual Attention in Dogs and the Evolution of Non-Verbal Communication
  • Sylvain Fiset, Pierre Nadeau-Marchand & Nathaniel Hall: Cognitive Development in Gray Wolves: Development of Object Permanence and Sensorimotor Intelligence with Respect to Domestic Dogs (Canine Cognition Lab)
  • Monique Udell, Kathryn Lord, Erica Feuerbacher & Clive Wynne: A Dog’s-Eye View of Canine Cognition (OSU Human-Animal Interaction Lab, University of Florida Canine Cognition and Behavior Lab, and Canine Science Collaboratory
  • Nicola Rooney and John Bradshaw: Canine Welfare Science: An Antidote to Sentiment and Myth
    For those working with shelter or working dogs, the final chapter by Rooney and Bradshaw is incredibly useful. Scratch that. Anyone who cares about dogs should understand how animal welfare science can be applied to canines.

    What can I say? Books about canine behavior, biology and cognition are great.

    Julie

    Reference
    Horowitz A. (2014). Domestic Dog Cognition and Behavior The Scientific Study of Canis familiaris, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-53994-7
    Read More..

    Robo WOOF! Whats happening in dog human communication technology

    (Source)
    Hey Julie,
    Thank you for the gorgeous congratulations for winning Im a Scientist, get me out of here! - what an amazing experience! So many students engaged in science and asking questions that made my head spin - fabulous, fabulous stuff! I learned so much!

    One of the questions that came up a few times during the live chat sessions with student classes was about communication between dogs and people. I was asked "Do you think dogs will ever be able to talk to humans?" and "Why dont dogs talk? Why do they only bark?", as well as "Do dogs understand us? How?" and "Could we use technology to communicate with dogs?" - you see? They kept me on my toes!

    My initial reactions were to say, "Dogs DO talk to us! They use their body language and their vocalisations extremely well, its just that people arent always fluent in listening to what theyre telling us!" I also told them all about Chaser and her 1,200+ words, about the fact dogs senses are different to ours (a much less visual, much more sniffy kind of a world).

    Then one student said, "But what about this?":

     
    Now Julie, I dont know about YOU, but somehow, I missed out on this BowLingual device when it was launched in the early noughties. Its a: 
    "computer-based dog-to-human language translation device developed by Japanese toy company Takara and first sold in Japan in 2002. Versions for South Korea and the United States were launched in 2003. The device was named by Time Magazine as a "Best Invention of 2002." The inventors of BowLingual, Keita Satoh, Dr. Matsumi Suzuki and Dr. Norio Kogure were awarded the Ig Nobel Prize for "promoting peace and harmony between the species.
    The device is presented as a "translator" but has been called an "emotion analyzer". It is said to use technology to categorize dog barks into one of six standardized emotional categories. BowLingual also provides a phrase which is representative of that emotion. The product instructions clearly state that these phrases "are for entertainment purposes only" and are not meant to be accurate translations of each bark."
    I totally endorse all those disclaimers, especially after reading this review by Dr Sophia Yin, but also cant help thinking if this toy device can register a dogs bark and then categorize the dogs mood as happy, sad, on guard, assertive, frustrated or needy - couldnt we just listen and do the same ourselves? I mean, you know that, right? You recently covered the latest scientific findings regarding what dogs barks are telling us, over at Scientific American and The Bark (ha!).  

    So why cant we just listen? Learn? I certainly know the difference between my dogs barks as to whether theres someone strange approaching our front door versus a family member or if theyre just playing when Im down the other end of our house. Im teaching my daughter to tell the difference too. Shes learning and shes just turned three.  

    So is it really that hard? Or are people just lazy?



    On the definitely-not-a-toy side of things, a Google Glass researcher has teamed up with a Georgia Institute of Technology professor to create FIDO (Facilitating Interactions for Dogs with Occupations) as wearable technology for working dogs to enable better communication with handlers. 


    FIDO works by giving a service or detection dog a special sensor that can attach to its collar of a vest. The dog can interact with the sensor by biting, tugging or touching it with their nose and the handler will receive a corresponding signal ("bomb ahead", "hurricane alarm sounding" or "you have pancreatic cancer" are all examples given for different working dog contexts) as an audio or display cue. You can read more about FIDO in an interview with the professor from Georgia Tech here. 

    Then theres the ICPooch, thats currently seeking funding via Kickstarter. The brain child of an entrepreneurial 13 year old (yep, you read that correctly) from the UK, the ICPooch promises to let you video talk with your dog (and deliver a treat cookie!) from anywhere in the world. 

    Like this:





    What do you think? Gimmick or something that has the potential to actually reduce separation anxiety in dog when their owners are away? Think dogs could potentially be remote trained by professional dog trainers? I wonder how well the dogs can actually SEE the display and whether they would respond differently to different people who dial in. 

    Very interested to hear your thoughts on this - hope youre well!

    Mia

    Further reading:

    Tan D., Fitzpatrick G., Gutwin C., Begole B., Kellogg W.A., Paldanius M., Kärkkäinen T., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila K., Juhlin O. & Häkkilä J. (2011) Communication technology for human-dog interaction: exploration of dog owners experiences and expectations, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2641. DOI: 10.1145/1978942.1979329

    Kerepesi A., Jonsson G.K., Miklósi Á., Topál J., Csányi V. & Magnusson M.S. (2005). Detection of temporal patterns in dog–human interaction, Behavioural Processes, 70 (1) 69-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2005.04.006

    © 2013 Mia Cobb | Do You Believe in Dog?
    Read More..