FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3177145975> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3177145975 endingPage "102763" @default.
• W3177145975 startingPage "102763" @default.
• W3177145975 abstract "•Dogs prefer to approach the food next to the facing owner in a two-way choice task•The variation among dogs is probably due to individual differences in sociability•Dogs' tendency to approach the facing owner may stem from their internal motivation•Alternatively, dogs may have associated the owner's face with positive reinforcement It is increasingly assumed that domestication has equipped dogs with unique socio-cognitive skills, which raises the possibility of intriguing parallels between the social motivational systems of the two species. However, the positive incentive value of human facial stimuli is a largely unexplored area. Here, we investigated whether the owner's face serves as a social reinforcer. In a two-way choice task N = 39 dogs were presented with a short video about their owners' head showing the face (facing owner [FO]) vs. the back of the head (non-facing owner). Despite both locations containing equal food reward, dogs approached the container associated with FO more frequently (p < .001), and this was not affected by side, trial order, and choice latency. However, the considerable inter-individual differences in dogs' task performance suggest that the added social component required special social skills which need to be further explored. It is increasingly assumed that domestication has equipped dogs with unique socio-cognitive skills, which raises the possibility of intriguing parallels between the social motivational systems of the two species. However, the positive incentive value of human facial stimuli is a largely unexplored area. Here, we investigated whether the owner's face serves as a social reinforcer. In a two-way choice task N = 39 dogs were presented with a short video about their owners' head showing the face (facing owner [FO]) vs. the back of the head (non-facing owner). Despite both locations containing equal food reward, dogs approached the container associated with FO more frequently (p < .001), and this was not affected by side, trial order, and choice latency. However, the considerable inter-individual differences in dogs' task performance suggest that the added social component required special social skills which need to be further explored. During their long domestication history dating back 15,000–30,000 years (Savolainen et al., 2002Savolainen P. Zhang Y. Luo J. Lundeberg J. Leitner T. Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs.Science. 2002; 298: 1610-1613Crossref PubMed Scopus (646) Google Scholar), dogs have gained special socio-cognitive skills which helped them navigate in the human environment and made them man's best friends. As a consequence, dogs recognize humans as social partners (Gacsi et al., 2009Gacsi M. Gyori B. Viranyi Z. Kubinyi E. Range F. Belenyi B. Miklosi A. Explaining dog wolf differences in utilizing human pointing gestures: selection for synergistic shifts in the development of some social skills.PLoS One. 2009; 4: e6584https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006584Crossref PubMed Scopus (150) Google Scholar; Hare and Tomasello, 2005Hare B. Tomasello M. Human-like social skills in dogs?.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2005; 9: 439-444Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (575) Google Scholar) and have become sensitive to interspecific communicative cues (Topál et al., 2014Topál J. Kis A. Oláh K. Kaminski J. Marshall-Pescini S. Chapter 11 - Dogs’ Sensitivity to Human Ostensive Cues: A Unique Adaptation?2014: 319-346https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407818-5.00011-5Crossref Scopus (51) Google Scholar). However, several questions remain regarding what constitutes this special interspecific bond and what exact function human social cues bear for dogs. In current canine cognition research, it has become increasingly important from both theoretical and applied perspectives to understand how social reinforcement works for dogs. From a theoretical point of view, investigating how social cues affect dogs' preference can bring us with one step closer to understand how dogs have adapted to the human social niche through evolution and what motivates these two unrelated species to maintain this special relationship. On the other hand, from an applied perspective, it is useful to understand how social cues can become intrinsically rewarding to dogs because this is an important aspect of training efficiency and welfare conditions. According to Ryan and Deci, 2000Ryan R.M. Deci E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions.Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000; 25: 54-67Crossref PubMed Scopus (6874) Google Scholar, intrinsic motivation “refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable”. Intrinsic motivation was first acknowledged within animal studies, where it was shown that many organisms are prone to engage in exploratory, playful. or curiosity-driven behaviors even without any extrinsic reinforcement or reward (White, 1959White R.W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.Psych. Rev. 1959; 66: 297-333Crossref PubMed Scopus (3719) Google Scholar). In line with Skinner's theory (Skinner, 1965Skinner B.F. Science and Human Behavior. Simon and Schuster, 1965Google Scholar) on operant conditioning—which states that all behaviors are motivated by rewards—intrinsically motivated activities are said to be ones for which the reward is in the activity itself. Recent studies provide supporting evidence that dogs, at least in particular situations, find human social interaction intrinsically rewarding, and the quality of human interaction can modify even the hormonal level of dogs (for a review see Kis et al., 2017Kis A. Ciobica A. Topál J. The effect of oxytocin on human-directed social behaviour in dogs (Canis familiaris).Horm. Behav. 2017; 94: 40-52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.06.001Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar). Positive human interaction has the potential to increase oxytocin—a neurohormone related to attachment behaviors—(Hritcu et al., 2019Hritcu L.D. Horhogea C. Ciobica A. Spataru M.C. Spataru C. Kis A. Conceptual replication of canine serum oxytocin increase following a positive dog-human interaction.Rev. Chim. 2019; 70: 1579-1581Crossref Google Scholar; Kis et al., 2017Kis A. Ciobica A. Topál J. The effect of oxytocin on human-directed social behaviour in dogs (Canis familiaris).Horm. Behav. 2017; 94: 40-52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.06.001Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar) while social isolation (e.g. in case of shelter dogs) increases cortisol—a neurohormone associated with stress level (Gunter et al., 2019Gunter L.M. Feuerbacher E.N. Gilchrist R.J. Wynne C.D.L. Evaluating the effects of a temporary fostering program on shelter dog welfare.PeerJ. 2019; 7: e6620Crossref PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar). Furthermore, using the fMRI method, Cook et al., 2016Cook P.F. Prichard A. Spivak M. Berns G.S. Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2016; 11: 1853-1862https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw102Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar found that dogs' ventral caudate—a core area involved in reward processing—showed equal or even greater activation in response to verbal praise than food in the vast majority of subjects (87%). Note, however, that dogs in this experiment received verbal praise from their re-entering owners, while subjects were rewarded with food in the absence of the owner. Although this discrepancy may potentially confound results and interpretation, this fMRI study serves further evidence for the importance of social reward to dogs. This brain area is also activated when dogs are presented with olfactory stimuli of familiar humans without any associated reward, suggesting that dogs are not only able to discriminate between unfamiliar and familiar people but the latter is associated with positive outcomes at the neural level (Berns et al., 2015Berns G.S. Brooks A.M. Spivak M. Scent of the familiar: an fMRI study of canine brain responses to familiar and unfamiliar human and dog odors.Behav. Process. 2015; 110: 37-46Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar). Behavioral studies, which focus on how social cues affect dog performance, suggest that some dogs prefer social over non-social reinforcers (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar). Others, however, found that human social reinforcement is not as effective as food reward for either family or shelter dogs (Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2012Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012; 98: 105-129Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2014Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2014; 101: 385-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar) and concluded that domestication has not necessarily resulted in specific changes in dogs’ social motivational system. Based on the results, the authors proposed that family dogs' preference for petting over food can be explained in terms of the subjects' reinforcement history (i.e. as a result of learning associations between physical contact with the owner and food). Namely, the owner may act as a conditioned social reinforcer so that he/she becomes a discriminative stimulus for the dog (Michael, 1982Michael J. Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1982; 37: 149-155Crossref PubMed Scopus (488) Google Scholar). In line with these, although the physical contact with the owner (as reward-associated stimulus) can acquire both incentive and predictive motivational properties, such motivation is linked to external reward, and thus, dogs are not intrinsically motivated to approach and maintain contact with their owners. Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2014Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2014; 101: 385-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar also noted that the high level of familiarity (owner vs. stranger) can increase dogs' preference toward the social reward, but this factor alone does not seem sufficient to overcome the preference for food. In another study, Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2012Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012; 98: 105-129Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar used nose touches to the experimenter's hand as an arbitrary measure to test the effectiveness of different types of reinforcers (social vs. food vs. extinction) among family dogs, shelter dogs, and hand-reared wolves. According to their results, responses decreased and latencies increased in the social reinforcement conditions. This finding is in agreement with the observation that many dogs experience aversion to be touched by an unfamiliar person (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar; Topál et al., 2005Topál J. Gácsi M. Miklósi Á. Virányi Z. Kubinyi E. Csányi V. Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies.Anim. Behav. 2005; 70: 1367-1375Crossref Scopus (179) Google Scholar). In line with this notion, Bhattacharjee et al., 2017aBhattacharjee D. Dev N.N. Gupta S. Sau S. Sarkar R. Biswas A. Banerjee A. Babu D. Mehta D. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs show age related plasticity in their ability to follow human pointing.PLoS One. 2017; 12https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180643Crossref Scopus (24) Google Scholar and (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar) found that free ranging dogs are biased against accepting food from the experimenter's hand; instead, they prefer to choose the food reward from the ground. However, as they progress toward becoming socialized (thereby paving the way for attachment formation), dogs increasingly prefer hand feeding. The authors concluded that long-term social reward—but not food reward—impacted dogs' tendency to make physical contact with the experimenter's hand, which suggests that compared to food, social reinforcement can be more effective in building attachment between humans and dogs. Altogether, these research findings raise the possibility that social reinforcement works specifically in different contexts and population of dogs and, at least in some cases, probably has a different function compared to food reward (i.e. social reinforcers are quite effective in increasing response frequency and other performance measures). Building on this previous knowledge, the present study explores whether the human caregiver's neutral face—without any accompanying social interaction—can have an effect on dogs' preference in a two-way choice task. Ample evidence suggests that faces are intrinsically rewarding to humans: children, for example, find a face stimulus more rewarding than a non-face stimulus (Stavropoulos and Carver, 2014Stavropoulos K.K.M. Carver L.J. Reward sensitivity to faces versus objects in children: an ERP study.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2014; 9: 1569-1575Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar). We also know that dogs' behavior can be reinforced the same way as adults motivate human children (Bandura and McDonald, 1963Bandura A. McDonald F.J. Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgment.J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 1963; 67: 274Crossref Scopus (230) Google Scholar; Harris et al., 1964Harris F.R. Wolf M.M. Baer D.M. Effects of adult social reinforcement on child behavior.Young Child. 1964; : 8-17Google Scholar; Horowitz, 1963Horowitz F.D. Social reinforcement effects on child behavior.J. Nursery Education. 1963; 18: 276-284Google Scholar). However, the possible positive value of human facial stimuli for dogs is still largely unexplored. It is known that dogs fulfill the pre-requisite of being able to extract various social information from human faces including the direction of gaze (Duranton et al., 2017Duranton C. Range F. Viranyi Z. Do pet dogs (Canis familiaris) follow ostensive and non-ostensive human gaze to distant space and to objects?.R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017; 4: 170349https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170349Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar; Riedel et al., 2008Riedel J. Schumann K. Kaminski J. Call J. Tomasello M. The early ontogeny of human–dog communication.Anim. Behav. 2008; 75: 1003-1014https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.010Crossref Scopus (153) Google Scholar; Téglás et al., 2012Téglás E. Gergely A. Kupán K. Miklósi Á. Topál J. Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals.Curr. Biol. 2012; 22: 209-212Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar), emotions (Huber et al., 2013Huber L. Racca A. Scaf B. Virányi Z. Range F. Discrimination of familiar human faces in dogs (Canis familiaris).Learn. Motiv. 2013; 44: 258-269https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2013.04.005Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar; Racca et al., 2012Racca A. Guo K. Meints K. Mills D.S. Reading faces: differential lateral gaze bias in processing canine and human facial expressions in dogs and 4-year-old children.PLoS One. 2012; 7: e36076Crossref PubMed Scopus (84) Google Scholar), and attentional states of humans (Call et al., 2003Call J. Bräuer J. Kaminski J. Tomasello M. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans.J. Comp. Psychol. 2003; 117: 257Crossref PubMed Scopus (226) Google Scholar; Gácsi et al., 2004Gácsi M. Miklósi Á. Varga O. Topál J. Csányi V. Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention.Anim. Cogn. 2004; 7: 144-153Crossref PubMed Scopus (184) Google Scholar). Thus, we hypothesized that in a two-way choice tasks dogs would prefer the side associated with their owner's face and would show increased response frequency and decreased latency. N = 13 dogs started with three consecutive “no choice” trials and thus were excluded from generalized linear mixed-effect models (GLMMs). Note, however, that the remaining N = 26 dogs fulfilled all 12 trials (i.e. made their choice within 40 s). At the group level, dogs approached the facing owner (FO) more frequently (59% of the cases) compared to the non-facing owner (NFO) (41% of the cases, binomial test, p = .001). At the individual level, however, only N = 9 out of the N = 26 subjects showed a significant preference toward the owners' face (at least 10/12 FO choices), while N = 4 of the subjects showed a significant avoidance of the owners' face (at least 10/12 NFO choices), with the remaining half of the subjects (N = 13) showing no significant preference for either of the stimuli (Figure 1). Furthermore, according to the logistic GLMMs, dogs' FO vs. NFO choices were not affected by either “trial order”, which “side” the facial stimuli was projected to, or “choice latency” (all p > .05). According to the GLMM, “choice latency” was affected by “trial order” (F11,287 = 8.16, p < .01), indicating that dogs choose faster toward the end of the experiment (see Data S1). Visual inspection of the data (Figure 2) also shows that some individuals performed with a short latency from the first trial on, and the group-level latency decrease is due to a sub-group of individuals. Finally, we did not find significant correlation between the degree to which dogs find social interactions rewarding (sum of the answers to questions with Likert scale) and the dogs' tendency to prefer the food location that had been previously “marked” by the video demonstration of the facing owner (r = −.076, p = .713). The present study investigated whether the mere presence of the owner's neutral face would have an effect on the dog's choice between two identical rewards. A two-way food choice task was conducted with a facing and non-facing owner and we found that similarly to children (Stavropoulos and Carver, 2014Stavropoulos K.K.M. Carver L.J. Reward sensitivity to faces versus objects in children: an ERP study.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2014; 9: 1569-1575Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar), dogs showed significant selection bias toward the food placed next to their owners' video-projected face. Previous studies used complex human social cues including emotions, gestures, and facial, verbal, and olfactory stimuli to investigate the possible rewarding effect of social cues (Berns et al., 2015Berns G.S. Brooks A.M. Spivak M. Scent of the familiar: an fMRI study of canine brain responses to familiar and unfamiliar human and dog odors.Behav. Process. 2015; 110: 37-46Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar; Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar; Cook et al., 2016Cook P.F. Prichard A. Spivak M. Berns G.S. Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2016; 11: 1853-1862https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw102Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar; Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2012Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012; 98: 105-129Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar, Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2014Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2014; 101: 385-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar). In the present study, however, we used only visual stimuli (emotionally neutral face of the owner and back of his/her head) and found that the owner's face has an additional rewarding effect when subjects are allowed to make a choice between two identical pieces of food. There are two possible explanations for these results. Based on previous studies showing that dogs find social interaction with humans intrinsically rewarding at hormonal (Kis et al., 2017Kis A. Ciobica A. Topál J. The effect of oxytocin on human-directed social behaviour in dogs (Canis familiaris).Horm. Behav. 2017; 94: 40-52https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.06.001Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar), neural (Cook et al., 2016Cook P.F. Prichard A. Spivak M. Berns G.S. Awake canine fMRI predicts dogs’ preference for praise vs food.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2016; 11: 1853-1862https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsw102Crossref PubMed Scopus (35) Google Scholar), and behavioral (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar) levels, we may assume that dogs' tendency to approach the facing owner in our study was an intrinsically motivated behavior, which probably originated from attachment regulation processes (Topál et al., 2005Topál J. Gácsi M. Miklósi Á. Virányi Z. Kubinyi E. Csányi V. Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies.Anim. Behav. 2005; 70: 1367-1375Crossref Scopus (179) Google Scholar). An alternative explanation might be that during their previous reinforcement history with their owner dogs just simply learned that the owner's face is predictive for reinforcement. If so, the observed choice bias has nothing to do with intrinsic motivation but rather with discriminative learning (i.e. the owner's face serves as a discriminative cue for the dogs—Michael, 1982Michael J. Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 1982; 37: 149-155Crossref PubMed Scopus (488) Google Scholar). To determine whether this explanation is plausible, dogs should be tested at least with a stranger with whom they have no previous reinforcement history, although they could still be generalizing from their history of reinforcement with their owner. Testing dogs from animal shelters (i.e. subjects deprived of human social contact) may also be a viable option, although in case of shelter dogs, probably due to their deprivation and the lack of an attachment figure might make human interactions from anyone reinforcing (Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2014Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2014; 101: 385-405Crossref PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar). However, it is important to mention that there are several methodological differences between prior studies and the current study. First, food was presented as a reward in an otherwise neutral context (sausages were placed on the top of two identical containers) in our study, whereas dogs in previous studies were observed in a potentially aversive situation (forced contact with a stranger). Furthermore, we did not aim to compare food vs. social reinforcement, as we supposed that the two different rewards have different functions. Food reward can be more effective in a performance context as it quickly increases response frequencies (Feuerbacher and Wynne, 2012Feuerbacher E.N. Wynne C.D.L. Relative efficacy of human social interaction and food as reinforcers for domestic dogs and hand-reared wolves.J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 2012; 98: 105-129Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar), but social reward can be more effective to strengthen the special bond between humans and dogs (Bhattacharjee et al., 2017bBhattacharjee D. Sau S. Das J. Bhadra A. Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans.J. Exp. Biol. 2017; 220: 4654-4660PubMed Google Scholar). Both processes are fundamental elements for successful learning. The fact that dogs' choices were faster toward the end of the 12 trials also supports that food and social reinforcement goes hand in hand when enhancing performance and the question is not which one is the better reinforcer but how and under what context they complement each other. It is also important to note that there was a quite big dropout rate (33%) in our study compared to other similar two-way choice task protocols in which this rate is usually around 10%. That is, approximately one-third of our subjects were extremely hesitant to make their choice; they failed to successfully complete even a single trial within a time limit of 40 s. This is surprising because we used sausage as a food reward, which is a strong incentive to dogs. Furthermore, there is good evidence that dogs can recognize their owners based on a picture (Eatherington et al., 2020Eatherington C.J. Mongillo P. Lõoke M. Marinelli L. Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognise our faces in photographs: implications for existing and future research.Anim. Cogn. 2020; 23: 711-719Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar), and although we used videos, which are more complex stimuli than pictures, it seems unlikely that dogs were not able to recognize their owners. Note, however, that owners were asked to remain present during the test trials of our study because many dogs show signs of separation anxiety when the owner is not present (Topál et al., 2005Topál J. Gácsi M. Miklósi Á. Virányi Z. Kubinyi E. Csányi V. Attachment to humans: a comparative study on hand-reared wolves and differently socialized dog puppies.Anim. Behav. 2005; 70: 1367-1375Crossref Scopus (179) Google Scholar). We may therefore assume that some dogs that have never seen their owner previously on a screen talking to them were not able to cope with such situational ambiguity and thus they responded hesitantly. Although dogs can reliably use pre-recorded videos of humans as a source of information in a pointing task (Péter et al., 2013Péter A. Miklósi Á. Pongrácz P. Domestic dogs’(Canis familiaris) understanding of projected video images of a human demonstrator in an object-choice task.Ethology. 2013; 119: 898-906Crossref Scopus (11) Google Scholar; Pongrácz et al., 2003Pongrácz P. Miklósi Á. Dóka A. Csányi V. Successful application of video-projected human images for signalling to dogs.Ethology. 2003; 109: 809-821Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar), it is still not clear how dogs process video recordings. Even 2- and 3-year-old children often become confused when presented with a video recording (Flavell et al., 1990Flavell J.H. Flavell E.R. Green F.L. Korfmacher J.E. Do young children think of television images as pictures or real objects?.J. Broadcast. Electron. Media. 1990; 34: 399-419Crossref Scopus (89) Google Scholar; Jaglom and Gardner, 1981Jaglom L.M. Gardner H. The preschool television viewer as anthropologist.New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 1981; 1981: 9-30Crossref Scopus (43) Google Scholar), as it requires dual representation of the stimuli (DeLoache, 1987DeLoache J.S. Rapid change in the symbolic functioning of very young children.Science. 1987; 238: 1556-1557Crossref PubMed Scopus (342) Google Scholar, DeLoache, 1991DeLoache J.S. Symbolic functioning in very young children: understanding of pictures and models.Child Dev. 1991; 62: 736-752Crossref PubMed Google Scholar). The ability for dual representation means that to respond appropriately to an image, the viewer must be aware of two independent factors at the same time: the content of the image and information indicating that this is merely a representation. It is reasonable to assume that the relatively high “non-response rate” stems from the ambivalent nature of this two-way choice task. In sum, we conclude that dogs, similarly to humans, show a behavioral preference toward human social stimuli and these have a rewarding effect to them. However, a considerable individual variation is present that can be partly explained by differences in dogs' individual sociability. Social and food rewards are complimentary and can intensify each other for dogs which are important from a practical perspective as well. Furthermore, our results are in line with earlier studies suggesting that dogs perceive neutral human faces positive rather than negative. Finally, from a methodological and welfare perspective, future research should put more emphasis on the individual differences that may underlie this process as well as on how dogs react to the experimenters when the owner is eliminated from the test. Despite the group-level preference, there was a considerable individual variation among subjects, as our sample even included a few dogs that avoided the owners' face and consistently chose the food bait on the side associated with the back of the head. It is plausible to assume that variation in dogs' sociability traits would explain some part of such between-subject differences. In the present study, an owner-reported questionnaire was used to assess social reward sensitivity. Questionnaire scores, however, did not differ between subjects with different performance regarding the preference toward the owner's face. This result can implicate two explanations. First, the owners' perception about their dogs' sensitivity to social reward might not be a good so" @default.
• W3177145975 created "2021-07-05" @default.
• W3177145975 creator A5002450491 @default.
• W3177145975 creator A5057710557 @default.
• W3177145975 creator A5074664993 @default.
• W3177145975 creator A5077890549 @default.
• W3177145975 date "2021-08-01" @default.
• W3177145975 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W3177145975 title "The implicit reward value of the owner's face for dogs" @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1964159998 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1964379337 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1972054944 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1990252666 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1992504553 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W1995162535 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2000588036 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2000644919 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2041935107 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2073722943 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2075670547 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2078337346 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2081901919 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2083933699 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2102253923 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2107639039 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2127633622 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2129222975 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2136322267 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2142999568 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2151550426 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2154293430 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2154735383 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2158748919 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2170899200 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2728653157 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2736304028 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2736672797 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2794269479 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W2923188331 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W3001093689 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W3016046812 @default.
• W3177145975 cites W4242884136 @default.
• W3177145975 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102763" @default.
• W3177145975 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/8355952" @default.
• W3177145975 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34401657" @default.
• W3177145975 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3177145975 type Work @default.
• W3177145975 sameAs 3177145975 @default.
• W3177145975 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3177145975 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3177145975 hasAuthorship W3177145975A5002450491 @default.
• W3177145975 hasAuthorship W3177145975A5057710557 @default.
• W3177145975 hasAuthorship W3177145975A5074664993 @default.
• W3177145975 hasAuthorship W3177145975A5077890549 @default.
• W3177145975 hasBestOaLocation W31771459751 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C119857082 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C2776291640 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C2779304628 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C119857082 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C144024400 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C15744967 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C2776291640 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C2779304628 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C36289849 @default.
• W3177145975 hasConceptScore W3177145975C41008148 @default.
• W3177145975 hasFunder F4320321994 @default.
• W3177145975 hasFunder F4320322192 @default.
• W3177145975 hasFunder F4320323074 @default.
• W3177145975 hasFunder F4320326762 @default.
• W3177145975 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W3177145975 hasLocation W31771459751 @default.
• W3177145975 hasLocation W31771459752 @default.
• W3177145975 hasLocation W31771459753 @default.
• W3177145975 hasOpenAccess W3177145975 @default.
• W3177145975 hasPrimaryLocation W31771459751 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2051727078 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2087351383 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2097712861 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2322415543 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2322649837 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2326604595 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2328490086 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2329232059 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W2522534512 @default.
• W3177145975 hasRelatedWork W4248487795 @default.
• W3177145975 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W3177145975 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3177145975 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3177145975 magId "3177145975" @default.
• W3177145975 workType "article" @default.