A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures

We investigated whether dogs and 2-, and 3-year-old human infants living, in some respects, in very similar social environments are able to comprehend various forms of the human pointing gesture. In the first study, we looked at their ability to comprehend different arm pointing gestures (long cross-pointing, forward cross-pointing and elbow cross-pointing) to locate a hidden object. Three-year-olds successfully used all gestures as directional cues, while younger children and dogs could not understand the elbow cross-pointing. Dogs were also unsuccessful with the forward cross-pointing. In the second study, we used unfamiliar pointing gestures i.e. using a leg as indicator (pointing with leg, leg cross-pointing, pointing with knee). All subjects were successful with leg pointing gestures, but only older children were able to comprehend the pointing with knee. We suggest that 3-year-old children are able to rely on the direction of the index finger, and show the strongest ability to generalize to unfamiliar gestures. Although some capacity to generalize is also evident in younger children and dogs, especially the latter appear biased in the use of protruding body parts as directional signals.     

Comprehension and utilisation of pointing gestures and gazing in dog–human communication in relatively complex situations

The aim of the present investigation was to study the visual communication between humans and dogs in relatively complex situations. In the present research, we have modelled more lifelike situations in contrast to previous studies which often relied on using only two potential hiding locations and direct association between the communicative signal and the signalled object. In Study 1, we have provided the dogs with four potential hiding locations, two on each side of the experimenter to see whether dogs are able to choose the correct location based on the pointing gesture. In Study 2, dogs had to rely on a sequence of pointing gestures displayed by two different experimenters. We have investigated whether dogs are able to recognise an ‘indirect signal’, that is, a pointing toward a pointer. In Study 3, we have examined whether dogs can understand indirect information about a hidden object and direct the owner to the particular location. Study 1 has revealed that dogs are unlikely to rely on extrapolating precise linear vectors along the pointing arm when relying on human pointing gestures. Instead, they rely on a simple rule of following the side of the human gesturing. If there were more targets on the same side of the human, they showed a preference for the targets closer to the human. Study 2 has shown that dogs are able to rely on indirect pointing gestures but the individual performances suggest that this skill may be restricted to a certain level of complexity. In Study 3, we have found that dogs are able to localise the hidden object by utilising indirect human signals, and they are able to convey this information to their owner.     

Does affective information influence domestic dogs’ (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis lupus familiaris</Emphasis>) point-following behavior?

Several studies have examined dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) comprehension and use of human communicative cues. Relatively few studies have, however, examined the effects of human affective behavior (i.e., facial and vocal expressions) on dogs’ exploratory and point-following behavior. In two experiments, we examined dogs’ frequency of following an adult’s pointing gesture in locating a hidden reward or treat when it occurred silently, or when it was paired with a positive or negative facial and vocal affective expression. Like prior studies, the current results demonstrate that dogs reliably follow human pointing cues. Unlike prior studies, the current results also demonstrate that the addition of a positive affective facial and vocal expression, when paired with a pointing gesture, did not reliably increase dogs’ frequency of locating a hidden piece of food compared to pointing alone. In addition, and within the negative facial and vocal affect conditions of Experiment 1 and 2, dogs were delayed in their exploration, or approach, toward a baited or sham-baited bowl. However, in Experiment 2, dogs continued to follow an adult’s pointing gesture, even when paired with a negative expression, as long as the attention-directing gesture referenced a baited bowl. Together these results suggest that the addition of affective information does not significantly increase or decrease dogs’ point-following behavior. Rather these results demonstrate that the presence or absence of affective expressions influences a dogs’ exploratory behavior and the presence or absence of reward affects whether they will follow an unfamiliar adult’s attention-directing gesture.     

Do domestic dogs interpret pointing as a command?

Domestic dogs comprehend human gestural communication flexibly, particularly the pointing gesture. Here, we examine whether dogs interpret pointing informatively, that is, as simply providing information, or rather as a command, for example, ordering them to move to a particular location. In the first study a human pointed toward an empty cup. In one manipulation, the dog either knew or did not know that the designated cup was empty (and that the other cup actually contained the food). In another manipulation, the human (as authority) either did or did not remain in the room after pointing. Dogs ignored the human’s gesture if they had better information, irrespective of the authority’s presence. In the second study, we varied the level of authority of the person pointing. Sometimes this person was an adult, and sometimes a young child. Dogs followed children’s pointing just as frequently as they followed adults’ pointing (and ignored the dishonest pointing of both), suggesting that the level of authority did not affect their behavior. Taken together these studies suggest that dogs do not see pointing as an imperative command ordering them to a particular location. It is still not totally clear, however, if they interpret it as informative or in some other way.     

Altered Arm-Body Coordination with Triggered Pointing Responses as Influenced by Task Predictability

Abstract

Reaching movements generate reaction forces that affect postural stability, requiring sophisticated coordination between body and arm movement to maintain balance. In voluntary movement, this coordination involves feedforward shifts of posture, and such anticipatory postural muscle activity also accompanies the rapid modulation of an ongoing point to suddenly a shifting target (double-step). However, it is unknown if this early postural activity depends on target-shift predictability and whether arm and body motion are similar coordinated to voluntary movement. Body and arm motion coordination during double-step pointing movements from standing were done under differing conditions of target-shift predictability. In a proportion of trials, the pointing target was displaced, with the predictability of target-shift direction varied between two peripheral targets (target-shift direction known) and two central targets (target-shift direction uncertain). The target jump evoked an adjustment in the arm then body response, opposite to the pointing responses to the initial target. The triggered arm-then-body ordering was consistent across target-shift predictability, although known target-shift direction resulted in closer timing of arm and body onsets. The altered coordination in triggered corrections suggests that the body component in triggered reactions depend on response predictability, showing an altered control of arm and body motion.     

Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis lupus</Emphasis>) and dogs (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis familiaris</Emphasis>)

Dogs have a remarkable skill to use human-given cues in object-choice tasks, but little is known to what extent their closest wild-living relative, the wolf can achieve this performance. In Study 1, we compared wolf and dog pups hand-reared individually and pet dogs of the same age in their readiness to form eye-contact with a human experimenter in an object-choice task and to follow her pointing gesture. The results showed that dogs already at 4 months of age use momentary distal pointing to find hidden food even without intensive early socialization. Wolf pups, on the contrary, do not attend to this subtle pointing. Accordingly in Studies 2 and 3, these wolves were tested longitudinally with this and four other (easier) human-given cues. This revealed that wolves socialized at a comparable level to dogs are able to use simple human-given cues spontaneously if the human’s hand is close to the baited container (e.g. touching, proximal pointing). Study 4 showed that wolves can follow also momentary distal pointing similarly to dogs if they have received extensive formal training. Comparing the wolves to naïve pet dogs of the same age revealed that during several months of formal training wolves can reach the level of dogs in their success of following momentary distal pointing in parallel with improving their readiness to form eye-contact with a human experimenter. We assume that the high variability in the wolves’ communicative behaviour might have provided a basis for selection during the course of domestication of the dog.     

The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs

In spite of the rather different procedures actually used in comparative studies to test the ability of different species to rely on the human pointing gesture, there is no debate on the high performance of dogs in such tasks. Very little is known, however, on the course through which they acquire this ability or the probable factors influencing the process. Important developmental questions have remained unsolved and also some methodological concerns should be addressed before we can convincingly argue for one interpretation or another. In this study we tested 180 dogs of different age (from 2 months to adults) to investigate their performance in the human distal momentary pointing gesture. The results, analyzed at both the group and the individual levels, showed no difference in the performance according to age, indicating that in dogs the comprehension of the human pointing may require only very limited and rapid early learning to fully develop. Interestingly, neither the keeping conditions nor the time spent in active interaction with the owner, and not even some special (agility) training for using human visual cues, had significant effect on the success and explained individual differences. The performance of the dogs was rather stable over time: during the 20 trials within a session and even when subsamples of different age were repeatedly tested. Considering that in spite of the general success at the group level, more than half of the dogs were not successful at the individual level, we revealed alternative “decision-making rules” other than following the pointing gesture of the experimenter. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Exploitation of pointing as a referential gesture in young children, but not adolescent chimpanzees

The ability of adolescent chimpanzees and 2- and 3-year-old children to use pointing gestures to locate hidden surprises was examined in two experiments. The results revealed that although young 2-year-old children appeared to have no difficulty extracting referential information from a pointing gesture (independent of gaze or distance cues) and spontaneously using it to search in specific locations, adolescent chimpanzees appeared to rely on cueconfiguration and distance-based rules. Thus, although these chimpanzees were trained to respond appropriately to the pointing gestures of a human by searching in a particular location, this ability did not easily generalize to situations in which the distance between the pointing hand and the location were more distal. Furthermore, even those chimpanzees that were able to generalize in this fashion appeared to use distance-based cues, not ones based on an appreciation of the internal attentional focus or mental referent of the experimenter as indicated by his pointing gesture.     

Interpretation of human pointing by African elephants: generalisation and rationality

Factors influencing the abilities of different animals to use cooperative social cues from humans are still unclear, in spite of long-standing interest in the topic. One of the few species that have been found successful at using human pointing is the African elephant (Loxodonta africana); despite few opportunities for learning about pointing, elephants follow a pointing gesture in an object-choice task, even when the pointing signal and experimenter’s body position are in conflict, and when the gesture itself is visually subtle. Here, we show that the success of captive African elephants at using human pointing is not restricted to situations where the pointing signal is sustained until the time of choice: elephants followed human pointing even when the pointing gesture was withdrawn before they had responded to it. Furthermore, elephants rapidly generalised their response to a type of social cue they were unlikely to have seen before: pointing with the foot. However, unlike young children, they showed no sign of evaluating the ‘rationality’ of this novel pointing gesture according to its visual context: that is, whether the experimenter’s hands were occupied or not.     

Domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) choices in reference to information provided by human and artificial hands

Even young humans show sensitivity to the accuracy and reliability of informants’ reports. Children are selective in soliciting information and in accepting claims. Recent research has also investigated domestic dogs’ (Canis familiaris) sensitivity to agreement among human informants. Such research utilizing a common human pointing gesture to which dogs are sensitive in a food retrieval paradigm suggests that dogs might choose among informants according to the number of points exhibited, rather than the number of individuals indicating a particular location. Here, we further investigated dogs’ use of information from human informants using a stationary pointing gesture, as well as the conditions under which dogs would utilize a stationary point. First, we explored whether the number of points or the number of individuals more strongly influenced dogs’ choices. To this end, dogs encountered a choice situation in which the number of points exhibited toward a particular location and the number of individuals exhibiting those points conflicted. Results indicated that dogs chose in accordance with the number of points exhibited toward a particular location. In a second experiment, we explored the possibility that previously learned associations drove dogs’ responses to the stationary pointing gesture. In this experiment, dogs encountered a choice situation in which artificial hands exhibited a stationary pointing gesture toward or away from choice locations in the absence of humans. Dogs chose the location to which the artificial hand pointed. These results are consistent with the notion that dogs may respond to a human pointing gesture due to their past-learning history.     

Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus)

Twenty domestic horses (Equus caballus) were tested for their ability to rely on different human gesticular cues in a two-way object choice task. An experimenter hid food under one of two bowls and after baiting, indicated the location of the food to the subjects by using one of four different cues. Horses could locate the hidden reward on the basis of the distal dynamic-sustained, proximal momentary and proximal dynamic-sustained pointing gestures but failed to perform above chance level when the experimenter performed a distal momentary pointing gesture. The results revealed that horses could rely spontaneously on those cues that could have a stimulus or local enhancement effect, but the possible comprehension of the distal momentary pointing remained unclear. The results are discussed with reference to the involvement of various factors such as predisposition to read human visual cues, the effect of domestication and extensive social experience and the nature of the gesture used by the experimenter in comparative investigations.     

Test sensitivity is important for detecting variability in pointing comprehension in canines

Several articles have been recently published on dogs’ (Canis familiaris) performance in two-way object choice experiments in which subjects had to find hidden food by utilizing human pointing. The interpretation of results has led to a vivid theoretical debate about the cognitive background of human gestural signal understanding in dogs, despite the fact that many important details of the testing method have not yet been standardized. We report three experiments that aim to reveal how some procedural differences influence adult companion dogs’ performance in these tests. Utilizing a large sample in Experiment 1, we provide evidence that neither the keeping conditions (garden/house) nor the location of the testing (outdoor/indoor) affect a dogs’ performance. In Experiment 2, we compare dogs’ performance using three different types of pointing gestures. Dogs’ performance varied between momentary distal and momentary cross-pointing but “low” and “high” performer dogs chose uniformly better than chance level if they responded to sustained pointing gestures with reinforcement (food reward and a clicking sound; “clicker pointing”). In Experiment 3, we show that single features of the aforementioned “clicker pointing” method can slightly improve dogs’ success rate if they were added one by one to the momentary distal pointing method. These results provide evidence that although companion dogs show a robust performance at different testing locations regardless of their keeping conditions, the exact execution of the human gesture and additional reinforcement techniques have substantial effect on the outcomes. Consequently, researchers should standardize their methodology before engaging in debates on the comparative aspects of socio-cognitive skills because the procedures they utilize may differ in sensitivity for detecting differences.     

Dogs demonstrate perspective taking based on geometrical gaze following in a Guesser–Knower task

Currently, there is still no consensus about whether animals can ascribe mental states (Theory of Mind) to themselves and others. Showing animals can respond to cues that indicate whether another has visual access to a target or not, and that they are able to use this information as a basis for whom to rely on as an informant, is an important step forward in this direction. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) with human informants are an ideal model, because they show high sensitivity towards human eye contact, they have proven able to assess the attentional state of humans in food-stealing or food-begging contexts, and they follow human gaze behind a barrier when searching for food. With 16 dogs, we not only replicated the main results of Maginnity and Grace (Anim Cogn 17(6):1375–1392, 2014) who recently found that dogs preferred to follow the pointing of a human who witnessed a food hiding event over a human who did not (the Guesser–Knower task), but also extended this finding with a further, critical control for behaviour-reading: two informants showed identical looking behaviour, but due to their different position in the room, only one had the opportunity to see where the food was hidden by a third person. Preference for the Knower in this critical test provides solid evidence for geometrical gaze following and perspective taking in dogs.     

Dynamic pointing triggers shifts of visual attention in young infants

Pointing, like eye gaze, is a deictic gesture that can be used to orient the attention of another person towards an object or an event. Previous research suggests that infants first begin to follow a pointing gesture between 10 and 13 months of age. We investigated whether sensitivity to pointing could be seen at younger ages employing a technique recently used to show early sensitivity to perceived eye gaze. Three experiments were conducted with 4.5- and 6.5-month-old infants. Our first goal was to examine whether these infants could show a systematic response to pointing by shifting their visual attention in the direction of a pointing gesture when we eliminated the difficulty of disengaging fixation from a pointing hand. The results from Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that a dynamic, but not a static, pointing gesture triggers shifts of visual attention in infants as young as 4.5 months of age. Our second goal was to clarify whether this response was based on sensitivity to the directional posture of the pointing hand, the motion of the pointing hand, or both. The results from Experiment 3 suggest that the direction of motion is necessary but not sufficient to orient infants' attention toward a distal target. Infants shifted their attention in the direction of the pointing finger, but only when the hand was moving in the same direction. These results suggest that infants are prepared to orient to the distal referent of a pointing gesture which likely contributes to their learning the communicative function of pointing.     

How dogs know when communication is intended for them

Domestic dogs comprehend human gestural communication in a way that other animal species do not. But little is known about the specific cues they use to determine when human communication is intended for them. In a series of four studies, we confronted both adult dogs and young dog puppies with object choice tasks in which a human indicated one of two opaque cups by either pointing to it or gazing at it. We varied whether the communicator made eye contact with the dog in association with the gesture (or whether her back was turned or her eyes were directed at another recipient) and whether the communicator called the dog's name (or the name of another recipient). Results demonstrated the importance of eye contact in human-dog communication, and, to a lesser extent, the calling of the dog's name--with no difference between adult dogs and young puppies--which are precisely the communicative cues used by human infants for identifying communicative intent. Unlike human children, however, dogs did not seem to comprehend the human's communicative gesture when it was directed to another human, perhaps because dogs view all human communicative acts as directives for the recipient.     

A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans

Dogs' (Canis familiaris) and cats' (Felis catus) interspecific communicative behavior toward humans was investigated. In Experiment 1, the ability of dogs and cats to use human pointing gestures in an object-choice task was compared using 4 types of pointing cues differing in distance between the signaled object and the end of the fingertip and in visibility duration of the given signal. Using these gestures, both dogs and cats were able to find the hidden food; there was no significant difference in their performance. In Experiment 2, the hidden food was made inaccessible to the subjects to determine whether they could indicate the place of the hidden food to a naive owner. Cats lacked some components of attention-getting behavior compared with dogs. The results suggest that individual familiarization with pointing gestures ensures high-level performance in the presence of such gestures; however, species-specific differences could cause differences in signaling toward the human.     

Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Canis familiaris</Emphasis>) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention

The ability of animals to use behavioral/facial cues in detection of human attention has been widely investigated. In this test series we studied the ability of dogs to recognize human attention in different experimental situations (ball-fetching game, fetching objects on command, begging from humans). The attentional state of the humans was varied along two variables: (1) facing versus not facing the dog; (2) visible versus non-visible eyes. In the first set of experiments (fetching) the owners were told to take up different body positions (facing or not facing the dog) and to either cover or not cover their eyes with a blindfold. In the second set of experiments (begging) dogs had to choose between two eating humans based on either the visibility of the eyes or direction of the face. Our results show that the efficiency of dogs to discriminate between attentive and inattentive humans depended on the context of the test, but they could rely on the orientation of the body, the orientation of the head and the visibility of the eyes. With the exception of the fetching-game situation, they brought the object to the front of the human (even if he/she turned his/her back towards the dog), and preferentially begged from the facing (or seeing) human. There were also indications that dogs were sensitive to the visibility of the eyes because they showed increased hesitative behavior when approaching a blindfolded owner, and they also preferred to beg from the person with visible eyes. We conclude that dogs are able to rely on the same set of human facial cues for detection of attention, which form the behavioral basis of understanding attention in humans. Showing the ability of recognizing human attention across different situations dogs proved to be more flexible than chimpanzees investigated in similar circumstances.     

Limb Segment Recruitment as Function of Movement Direction,Amplitude, and Speed

Coordination of limb segments in graphic motor behavior has been studied primarily in cyclic tasks. In the present study, limb segment recruitment patterns were investigated in a discrete line-drawing task. Subjects (N = 11) performed pointing movements varying in direction, amplitude, and speed. The contributions of index finger, hand, and arm to the movement were analyzed by evaluating the angular displacements in 7 joint dimensions. The results showed that amplitude and direction affected limb segment involvement in the same way they have been reported to affect it in cyclic movements. Upward left- (up-left) directed movements were primarily achieved by fingers and arm, whereas upward right- (up-right) directed movements were accomplished with the hand and the arm. Large amplitudes elicited not only an increase of proximal but also a decrease of distal limb segment involvement, especially in the up-left direction. In the present discrete pointing task, effects of speed on limb segment involvement were different from speed effects that were observed earlier in cyclic tasks: Larger limb segments became more involved in fast than in slow discrete movements. With respect to the timing of limb segment recruitment, all joints tended to move simultaneously, but small deviations from synchronous joint movement onset and offset were present. The results are discussed in the context of recent theories of limb segment coordination.     

What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures

In many studies that have investigated whether dogs’ capacities to understand human pointing gestures are aspects of evolutionary or developmental social competences, family-owned dogs have been compared to shelter dogs. However, for most of these studies, the origins of shelter dogs were unknown. Some shelter dogs may have lived with families before entering shelters, and from these past experiences, they may have learned to understand human gestures. Furthermore, there is substantial variation in the methodology and analytic approaches used in such studies (e.g. different pointing protocols, different treatment of trials with no-choice response and indoor vs. outdoor experimental arenas). Such differences in methodologies and analysis techniques used make it difficult to compare results obtained from different studies and may account for the divergent results obtained. We thus attempted to control for several parameters by carrying out a test on dynamic proximal and distal pointing. We studied eleven kennel dogs of known origin that were born and raised in a kennels with limited human interaction. This group was compared to a group of eleven dogs comparable in terms of breed, sex and age that had lived with human families since they were puppies. Our results demonstrate that pet dogs outperform kennel dogs in their comprehension of proximal and distal pointing, regardless of whether trials where no-choice was made were considered as errors or were excluded from statistical analysis, meaning that dogs living in kennels do not understand pointing gestures. Even if genetic effects of the domestication process on human–dog relationships cannot be considered as negligible, our data suggest that dogs need to learn human pointing gestures and thus underscore the importance of ontogenetic processes.     

The chimpanzee mind: in search of the evolutionary roots of the human mind

One advantage of living in a social group is the opportunity to use information provided by other individuals. Social information can be based on cues provided by a conspecific or even by a heterospecific individual (e.g., gaze direction, vocalizations, pointing gestures). Although the use of human gaze and gestures has been extensively studied in primates, and is increasingly studied in other mammals, there is no documentation of birds using these cues in a cooperative context. In this study, we tested the ability of three African gray parrots to use different human cues (pointing and/or gazing) in an object-choice task. We found that one subject spontaneously used the most salient pointing gesture (looking and steady pointing with hand at about 20 cm from the baited box). The two others were also able to use this cue after 15 trials. None of the parrots spontaneously used the steady gaze cues (combined head and eye orientation), but one learned to do so effectively after only 15 trials when the distance between the head and the baited box was about 1 m. However, none of the parrots were able to use the momentary pointing nor the distal pointing and gazing cues. These results are discussed in terms of sensitivity to joint attention as a prerequisite to understand pointing gestures as it is to the referential use of labels.