ArticleScientific reports2023
The influence of voice familiarity and linguistic content on dogs' ability to follow human voice direction.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dogs tuned to conspecific vocalizations: behavioral evidence for a voice processing preference.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Dog-Owner Relationship and Its Association with Social Cognition in French Bulldogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Domestic dogs are well-known for their abilities to utilize human referential cues for problem solving, including following the direction of human voice. This study investigated whether dogs can locate hidden food relying only on the direction of human voice and whether familiarity with the speaker (owner/stranger) and the relevance of auditory signal features (ostensive addressing indicating the intent for communication to the receiver; linguistic content) affect performance. N = 35 dogs and their owners participated in four conditions in a two-way object choice task. Dogs were presented with referential auditory cues representing different combinations of three contextual parameters: the (I) 'familiarity with the human informant' (owner vs. stranger), the (II) communicative function of attention getter (ostensive addressing vs. non-ostensive cueing) and the (III) 'tone and content of the auditory cue' (high-pitched/potentially relevant vs. low-pitched/potentially irrelevant). Dogs also participated in a 'standard' pointing condition where a visual cue was provided. Significant differences were observed between conditions regarding correct choices and response latencies, suggesting that dogs' response to auditory signals are influenced by the combination of content and intonation of the message and the identity of the speaker. Dogs made correct choices the most frequently when context-relevant auditory information was provided by their owners and showed less success when auditory signals were coming from the experimenter. Correct choices in the 'Pointing' condition were similar to the experimenter auditory conditions, but less frequent compared to the owner condition with potentially relevant auditory information. This was paralleled by shorter response latencies in the owner condition compared to the experimenter conditions, although the two measures were not related. Subjects' performance in response to the owner- and experimenter-given auditory cues were interrelated, but unrelated to responses to pointing gestures, suggesting that dogs' ability to understand the referential nature of auditory cues and visual gestures partly arise from different socio-cognitive skills.
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.