Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40809360›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2025

Does the tail show when the nose knows? Artificial intelligence outperforms human experts at predicting detection dogs finding their target through tail kinematics.

George Martvel, Giulia Pedretti, Teddy Lazebnik, Anna Zamansky, Yuri Ouchi, Tiago Monteiro, Nareed Farhat, Ilan Shimshoni, Yuval Michaeli, Paola Valsecchi and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

13 authors.

George Martvel *Department of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Giulia Pedretti *Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4440-351X
Teddy LazebnikDepartment of Mathematics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7851-8147
Anna ZamanskyDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8350-4068
Yuri OuchiUniversity of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan.
Tiago MonteiroUniversity of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Nareed FarhatDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Ilan ShimshoniDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Yuval MichaeliDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Paola ValsecchiDepartment of Evolutionary and Functional Biology, University of Parma, Parma, Emilia-Romagna, Italy.
Nathaniel HallAnimal and Food Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Sarah Marshall-PesciniDomestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Dan GrinsteinDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection dogs are utilized for searching and alerting to various substances due to their olfactory abilities. Dog trainers report being able to 'predict' such identification based on subtle behavioural changes, such as tail movement. This study investigated tail kinematic patterns of dogs during a detection task, using computer vision to detect tail movement. Eight dogs searched for a target odour on a search wall, alerting to its presence by standing still. Dogs' detection accuracy against a distractor odour was 100% with trained concentration, while during threshold assessment, it progressively reached 50%. In the target odour area, dogs exhibited a higher left-sided tail-wagging amplitude. An artificial intelligence (AI) model showed a 77% accuracy score in the classification, and, in line with the dogs' performance, progressively decreased at lower odour concentrations. Additionally, we compared the performance of an AI classification model to that of 190 detection dog handlers in determining when a dog was in the vicinity of a target odour. The AI model outperformed dog professionals, correctly classifying 66% against 46% of videos. These findings indicate the potential of AI-enhanced techniques to reveal new insights into dogs' behavioural repertoire during odour discrimination.

Indexed as

animal behaviourartificial intelligencecomputer visiondetection dogsdog olfactiondomestic dogvisual communication

Identifiers

PMID40809360
PMCPMC12344452

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.