Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36870003›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2023

Visual perception of emotion cues in dogs: a critical review of methodologies.

Catia Correia-Caeiro, Kun Guo, Daniel S Mills

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Catia Correia-CaeiroSchool of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK. catia_caeiro@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2819-6039
Kun GuoSchool of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK.
Daniel S MillsDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, LN6 7DL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Comparative studies of human-dog cognition have grown exponentially since the 2000's, but the focus on how dogs look at us (as well as other dogs) as social partners is a more recent phenomenon despite its importance to human-dog interactions. Here, we briefly summarise the current state of research in visual perception of emotion cues in dogs and why this area is important; we then critically review its most commonly used methods, by discussing conceptual and methodological challenges and associated limitations in depth; finally, we suggest some possible solutions and recommend best practice for future research. Typically, most studies in this field have concentrated on facial emotional cues, with full body information rarely considered. There are many challenges in the way studies are conceptually designed (e.g., use of non-naturalistic stimuli) and the way researchers incorporate biases (e.g., anthropomorphism) into experimental designs, which may lead to problematic conclusions. However, technological and scientific advances offer the opportunity to gather much more valid, objective, and systematic data in this rapidly expanding field of study. Solving conceptual and methodological challenges in the field of emotion perception research in dogs will not only be beneficial in improving research in dog-human interactions, but also within the comparative psychology area, in which dogs are an important model species to study evolutionary processes.

Indexed as

CuesEmotionsAnimalsCognitionDogsFacial ExpressionHumansVisual PerceptionBodily expressionsEmotion cuesFacial expressionsHuman–dog relationshipMethodologyVisual perception

Identifiers

PMID36870003
PMCPMC10066124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.