ArticleScientific reports2020
Conspecific recognition of pedal scent in domestic dogs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability, repeatability, and age associations of the dogSIT (dog Smell Interaction Test) battery in untrained companion dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Decoding dog communication through the physiology and behavior of urine marking.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The odour of an unfamiliar stressed or relaxed person affects dogs' responses to a cognitive bias test.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Dogs can discriminate between human baseline and psychological stress condition odours.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carnivores rely heavily on scent to communicate with conspecifics. Scent glands located on the underside of the feet provide an especially efficient way of leaving a scent trail. Although domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are well-known for their olfactory abilities and scent marking behaviours, their use of pedal scent for communication remains unknown. We studied the reaction of intact dogs of both sexes to male and female pedal scent as well as a control sample of scent taken from the ground, using sniffing time and nostril usage as an indicator of interest level and emotional valence. In male subjects, only the sniffing duration for other males differed from the control samples, with no clear difference detected between male and female scent. Females showed no difference in the sniffing duration for any sample type. Conversely, male nostril use did not differ between the sample types, whereas females demonstrated a right nostril bias when sniffing the scent from other females and a left nostril bias when sniffing the control. We have shown that dogs recognize scent taken from the pedal glands from other dogs, although the extent to which they use this information to determine the sex of the scent depositor remains unclear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.