Literature DB >> 24611641

The use of a displacement device negatively affects the performance of dogs (Canis familiaris) in visible object displacement tasks.

Corsin A Müller1, Stefanie Riemer1, Friederike Range1, Ludwig Huber1.   

Abstract

Visible and invisible displacement tasks have been used widely for comparative studies of animals' understanding of object permanence, with evidence accumulating that some species can solve invisible displacement tasks and, thus, reach Piagetian stage 6 of object permanence. In contrast, dogs appear to rely on associative cues, such as the location of the displacement device, during invisible displacement tasks. It remains unclear, however, whether dogs, and other species that failed in invisible displacement tasks, do so because of their inability to form a mental representation of the target object, or simply because of the involvement of a more salient but potentially misleading associative cue, the displacement device. Here we show that the use of a displacement device impairs the performance of dogs also in visible displacement tasks: their search accuracy was significantly lower when a visible displacement was performed with a displacement device, and only two of initially 42 dogs passed the sham-baiting control conditions. The negative influence of the displacement device in visible displacement tasks may be explained by strong associative cues overriding explicit information about the target object's location, reminiscent of an overshadowing effect, and/or object individuation errors as the target object is placed within the displacement device and moves along a spatiotemporally identical trajectory. Our data suggest that a comprehensive appraisal of a species' performance in object permanence tasks should include visible displacement tasks with the same displacement device used in invisible displacements, which typically has not been done in the past.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24611641      PMCID: PMC4178220          DOI: 10.1037/a0036032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comp Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9940            Impact factor:   2.231


  40 in total

1.  The value of the Piagetian framework for comparative cognitive studies.

Authors:  Irene M Pepperberg
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 3.084

2.  Comment on "Differential sensitivity to human communication in dogs, wolves, and human infants".

Authors:  S Marshall-Pescini; C Passalacqua; P Valsecchi; E Prato-Previde
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Object permanence in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and children (Homo sapiens).

Authors:  J Call
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.231

4.  Does the A-not-B error in adult pet dogs indicate sensitivity to human communication?

Authors:  Anna Kis; József Topál; Márta Gácsi; Friederike Range; Ludwig Huber; Adám Miklósi; Zsófia Virányi
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2012-03-30       Impact factor: 3.084

5.  Learning from others' mistakes? limits on understanding a trap-tube task by young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens).

Authors:  Victoria Horner; Andrew Whiten
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.231

6.  Invisible displacement understanding in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris): the role of visual cues in search behavior.

Authors:  Sylvain Fiset; Valérie Leblanc
Journal:  Anim Cogn       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Young infants' actions reveal their developing knowledge of support variables: converging evidence for violation-of-expectation findings.

Authors:  Susan J Hespos; Renée Baillargeon
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-09-07

Review 8.  Sex differences in learning processes of classical and operant conditioning.

Authors:  Christina Dalla; Tracey J Shors
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2009-03-09

9.  Search behavior in various breeds of adult dogs (Canis familiaris): object permanence and olfactory cues.

Authors:  S Gagnon; F Y Doré
Journal:  J Comp Psychol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.231

10.  Female but not male dogs respond to a size constancy violation.

Authors:  Corsin A Müller; Christina Mayer; Sebastian Dörrenberg; Ludwig Huber; Friederike Range
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2011-04-27       Impact factor: 3.703

View more
  2 in total

1.  Metacognition in dogs: Do dogs know they could be wrong?

Authors:  Julia Belger; Juliane Bräuer
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.986

Review 2.  In what sense are dogs special? Canine cognition in comparative context.

Authors:  Stephen E G Lea; Britta Osthaus
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.986

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.