Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38553650›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2024

Do dogs preferentially encode the identity of the target object or the location of others' actions?

Lucrezia Lonardo, Christoph J Völter, Robert Hepach, Claus Lamm, Ludwig Huber

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Showing-intentional communication-in dogs (Frontiers in psychology · 2025
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Lucrezia LonardoComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, 1210, Austria. lucrezia.lonardo@vetmeduni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7006-3766
Christoph J VölterComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, 1210, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8368-7201
Robert HepachDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4780-6549
Claus LammSocial, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience Unit, Department of Cognition, Emotion and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1010, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5422-0653
Ludwig HuberComparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna and University of Vienna, Veterinärplatz 1, Vienna, 1210, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0217-136X
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · ATUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to make sense of and predict others' actions is foundational for many socio-cognitive abilities. Dogs (Canis familiaris) constitute interesting comparative models for the study of action perception due to their marked sensitivity to human actions. We tested companion dogs (N = 21) in two screen-based eye-tracking experiments, adopting a task previously used with human infants and apes, to assess which aspects of an agent's action dogs consider relevant to the agent's underlying intentions. An agent was shown repeatedly acting upon the same one of two objects, positioned in the same location. We then presented the objects in swapped locations and the agent approached the objects centrally (Experiment 1) or the old object in the new location or the new object in the old location (Experiment 2). Dogs' anticipatory fixations and looking times did not reflect an expectation that agents should have continued approaching the same object nor the same location as witnessed during the brief familiarization phase; this contrasts with some findings with infants and apes, but aligns with findings in younger infants before they have sufficient motor experience with the observed action. However, dogs' pupil dilation and latency to make an anticipatory fixation suggested that, if anything, dogs expected the agents to keep approaching the same location rather than the same object, and their looking times showed sensitivity to the animacy of the agents. We conclude that dogs, lacking motor experience with the observed actions of grasping or kicking performed by a human or inanimate agent, might interpret such actions as directed toward a specific location rather than a specific object. Future research will need to further probe the suitability of anticipatory looking as measure of dogs' socio-cognitive abilities given differences between the visual systems of dogs and primates.

Indexed as

CognitionHominidaeAnimalsDogsHumansAction perceptionDog cognitionEye-trackingGoal-directed actionsSocial cognition

Identifiers

PMID38553650
PMCPMC10980658
OpenAlexW4393344446

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.