ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2025
Using mobile eye tracking to study dogs' understanding of human referential communication.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2025. 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.
- Analysis of human-oriented facial signals of the domestic dog using eye tracker technology.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Using mobile eye tracking to study dogs' understanding of human referential communication.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The extent to which dogs understand human referential communication is among the most studied questions in canine cognition research. While it is widely accepted that dogs follow (some) human referential signals, the way they understand them remains controversial. Here, we applied mobile eye tracking with dogs to investigate during real-world interactions how ostensive pointing and gaze cues direct dogs' visual attention and bias their subsequent choices in an object-choice task. We addressed the question of whether dogs would exhibit a greater response to referential communication compared with other directional cues. Five conditions were tested (pointing, pointing + gazing, gazing, fake throwing and no-cue control), each cue condition indicating the location of a hidden food reward. Results demonstrated that the combination of pointing and gazing significantly increased dogs' attention towards the designated referent. In pointing + gazing, dogs maintained longer attention on the referent compared with other conditions and they approached it significantly above chance levels. While the alternative cue (fake throwing) moved the dogs' gaze to the indicated direction, it did not increase the frequency of gaze shifts to the precise referent location. Our findings highlight that the joint use of pointing and gazing is a particularly effective method for directing dogs' attention to a referent.
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.