Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40220068›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2025

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise meaningful content in monotonous streams of read speech.

Holly Root-Gutteridge, Anna Korzeniowska, Victoria Ratcliffe, David Reby

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Holly Root-GutteridgeSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex, UK. hollyrg@googlemail.com.
Anna KorzeniowskaSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex, UK.
Victoria RatcliffeDefence Science and Technology Laboratory, Salisbury, Wiltshire, UK.
David RebySchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, East Sussex, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/P00170X/1'How Dogs Hear Us'
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) can recognize basic phonemic information from human speech and respond to commands. Commands are typically presented in isolation with exaggerated prosody known as dog-directed speech (DDS) register. Here, we investigate whether dogs can spontaneously identify meaningful phonemic content in a stream of putatively irrelevant speech spoken in monotonous prosody, without congruent prosodic cues. To test this ability, dogs were played recordings of their owners reading a meaningless text which included a short meaningful or meaningless phrase, either read with unchanged reading prosody or with an exaggerated DDS prosody. We measured the occurrence and duration of dogs' gaze at their owners. We found that, while dogs were more likely to detect and respond to inclusions that contained meaningful phrases spoken with DDS prosody, they were still able to detect these meaningful inclusions spoken in a neutral reading prosody. Dogs detected and responded to meaningless control phrases in DDS as frequently as to meaningful content in neutral reading prosody, but less often than to meaningful content in DDS. This suggests that, while DDS prosody facilitates the detection of meaningful content in human speech by capturing dogs' attention, dogs are nevertheless capable of spontaneously recognizing meaningful phonemic content within an unexaggerated stream of speech.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologySpeech PerceptionAnimalsDogsFemaleHumansMaleReadingDog-directed speechHeterospecific communicationHuman-animal communicationSpeech recognitionWord recognition

Identifiers

PMID40220068
PMCPMC11993455

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.