How do guide dogs and pet dogs (Canis familiaris) ask their owners for their toy and for playing?

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence Gaunet
Keyword(s):  
Pet Dogs ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 115 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krisztina Soproni ◽  
Adám Miklósi ◽  
József Topál ◽  
Vilmos Csányi
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Berthoud ◽  
C. Nevison ◽  
J. Waterhouse ◽  
D. Hawkins

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2382
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Hunt ◽  
Gary C. W. England ◽  
Lucy Asher ◽  
Helen Whiteside ◽  
Naomi D. Harvey

Working dog organisations regularly assess the behaviour of puppies to monitor progression. Here, we tested the predictive validity (for predicting success in guide dog training) of a shortened version of a previously developed juvenile dog behaviour questionnaire (the refined puppy walker questionnaire, r-PWQ) and compared it with the Canine Behavioral Assessment and Research Questionnaire (C-BARQ). The r-PWQ is used by Guide Dogs UK, whereas the C-BARQ was designed for pet dogs and is used by some other guide dog schools internationally. A cohort of dogs aged eight months (n = 359) were scored concurrently on the r-PWQ and C-BARQ. Analogous traits between the questionnaires were evaluated for internal consistency and association with training outcome and compared for concurrent validity. The r-PWQ was associated with training outcome for five scales (r-Excitability, Trainability, Animal Chase, r-Attachment and attention seeking and Distractibility) and the C-BARQ for two scales (Excitability and Separation-related behaviour). There were significant correlations between analogous C-BARQ and r-PWQ trait scores (p < 0.001) except for Separation-related behaviour and questionnaire scales had similar internal consistencies. The r-PWQ may be more suitable to use with guide dog schools. However, due to the correlation between analogous scales (except for “Distractibility”) some scales could be substituted for one another when reviewing the behaviour of dogs between guide dog schools using different questionnaires.


2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e39-e40
Author(s):  
Teresa Marmota ◽  
Zsófia Virányi ◽  
Friederike Range ◽  
Ludwig Huber
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 288 (1955) ◽  
pp. 20210906
Author(s):  
Lucrezia Lonardo ◽  
Christoph J. Völter ◽  
Claus Lamm ◽  
Ludwig Huber

We investigated whether dogs ( Canis familiaris ) distinguish between human true (TB) and false beliefs (FB). In three experiments with a pre-registered change of location task, dogs ( n = 260) could retrieve food from one of two opaque buckets after witnessing a misleading suggestion by a human informant (the ‘communicator’) who held either a TB or a FB about the location of food. Dogs in both the TB and FB group witnessed the initial hiding of food, its subsequent displacement by a second experimenter, and finally, the misleading suggestion to the empty bucket by the communicator. On average, dogs chose the suggested container significantly more often in the FB group than in the TB group and hence were sensitive to the experimental manipulation. Terriers were the only group of breeds that behaved like human infants and apes tested in previous studies with a similar paradigm, by following the communicator's suggestion more often in the TB than in the FB group. We discuss the results in terms of processing of goals and beliefs. Overall, we provide evidence that pet dogs distinguish between TB and FB scenarios, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying sensitivity to others' beliefs have not evolved uniquely in the primate lineage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document