ArticleScientific reports2023
Investigating responses to object-labels in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris).
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do dogs understand?-Contrasting anecdotal reports, neuroimaging, and behavioural evidence on language comprehension.Biologia futura · 2025Review
- Dogs with a vocabulary of object labels retain them for at least 2 years.Biology letters · 2024Article
- How do soundboard-trained dogs respond to human button presses? An investigation into word comprehension.PloS one · 2024Article
- A citizen science model turns anecdotes into evidence by revealing similar characteristics among Gifted Word Learner dogs.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the dawn of comparative cognitive research, dogs were suspected to possess some capacity for responding to human spoken language. Neuroimaging studies have supported the existence of relevant mechanisms, but convincing behavioral performance is rare, with only few exceptional dogs worldwide demonstrating a lexicon of object-labels they respond to. In the present study we aimed to investigate if and how a capacity for processing verbal stimuli is expressed in dogs (N = 20), whose alleged knowledge of verbal labels is only backed-up by owner reports taken at face value, and concerning only a few words (on average 5). Dogs were tested in a two-choice paradigm with familiar objects. The experiment was divided into a cue-control condition (objects visible to the owner vs. shielded by a panel, thereby controlling the owner's ability to emit cues to the dog) and a response type condition (fetching vs. looking). Above chance performance in fetching and looking at the named object emerged on the level of the sample as a whole. Only one individual performed reliably above chance, but the group-level effect did not depend on this data point. The presence of the panel also had no influence, which supports that performance was not driven by non-verbal cues from the owners. The group-level effect suggests that in typical dogs object-label learning is an instable process, either due to the animals primarily engaging in contextual learning or possibly analogous to the early stages of implicit, statistical learning of words in humans and opposed to the rapid mapping reported in exceptional dogs with larger passive vocabulary.
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.