ArticleAnimal cognition2025
Is dogs' tendency to follow human misleading communicative cues influenced by humans' auditory perspective?
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Popperian Dogs-Practical Rationality and Inferential Reasoning in Dogs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studying Theory of Mind in non-verbal populations requires designing tasks that address the distinction between responding based on directly perceivable cues and additionally inferring others' mental states. We designed and pre-registered an auditory version of a non-verbal change-of-location task, to investigate whether dogs are sensitive to a human communicator's mental states about the location of food. With control conditions we ruled out alternative cognitive processes such as associative learning. Dogs (N = 240) could witness that food was hidden first in one opaque bucket (A) and then relocated to a second opaque bucket (B) by an experimenter. Before being allowed to retrieve the food from one of the buckets, dogs received a misleading suggestion (A) from the communicator, who could not see the scene. In all conditions, the communicator could hear food being hidden in A, due to the presence of bells on the lid of this bucket. We manipulated whether she could also hear that food was removed from A and relocated to B (true belief) or not (silent bells on B, leading to her false belief). Importantly, in both conditions the communicator behaved identically (present in the room, suggesting A). Dogs' responses were not statistically different from those of a previous study using a similar change-of-location task in the visual domain (Lonardo et al. 288(1955), 2021, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.0906 ). Dogs' choices in the present study, however, did not differ significantly across conditions, suggesting that any auditory perspective-taking ability they might possess did not have a sufficiently large effect to be detected in this study.
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.