Dogs

is-having-a-pet-good-for-you?-the-fuzzy-science-of-pet-ownership

Is having a pet good for you? The fuzzy science of pet ownership

Who’s a good dog? —

It turns out the pet care industry has funded a lot of studies.

A picture of a bull terrier on a park bench

For more than a decade, in blog posts and scientific papers and public talks, the psychologist Hal Herzog has questioned whether owning pets makes people happier and healthier.

It is a lonely quest, convincing people that puppies and kittens may not actually be terrific for their physical and mental health. “When I talk to people about this,” Herzog recently said, “nobody believes me.” A prominent professor at a major public university once described him as “a super curmudgeon” who is, in effect, “trying to prove that apple pie causes cancer.”

As a teenager in New Jersey in the 1960s, Herzog kept dogs and cats, as well as an iguana, a duck, and a boa constrictor named Boa. Now a professor emeritus at Western Carolina University, he insists he’s not out to smear anyone’s furry friends. In a blog post questioning the so-called pet effect, in 2012, Herzog included a photo of his cat, Tilly. “She makes my life better,” he wrote. “Please Don’t Blame The Messenger!”

Plenty of people believe there’s something salubrious about caring for a pet, similar to eating veggies or exercising regularly. But, Herzog argues, the scientific evidence that pets can consistently make people healthier is, at best, inconclusive—and, at worst, has been used to mislead the American public.

Few, if any, experts say Herzog is exactly wrong—at least about the science. Over the past 30 or so years, researchers have published hundreds of studies exploring a link between pet ownership and a range of hypothesized benefits, including improved heart health, longer lifespans, and lower rates of anxiety and depression.

The results have been mixed. Studies often fail to find any robust link between pets and human well-being; some even find evidence of harms. In many cases, the studies simply can’t determine whether pets cause the observed effect or are simply correlated with it.

Where Herzog and some other experts have concerns is with the way those mixed results have been packaged and sold to the public. Tied up in that critique are pointed questions about the role of industry money on the development of a small field—a trend that happens across scientific endeavors, particularly those that don’t garner much attention from federal agencies, philanthropies, and other funding sources.

The pet care industry has invested millions of dollars in human-animal interaction research, mostly since the late 2000s. Feel-good findings have been trumpeted by industry press releases and, in turn, dominated news coverage, with headlines like “How Dogs Help Us Lead Longer, Healthier Lives.”

At times, industry figures have even framed pet ownership as a kind of public health intervention. “Everybody should quit smoking. Everybody should go to the gym. Everybody should eat more fruits and vegetables. And everyone should own a pet,” said Steven Feldman, president of the industry-funded Human Animal Bond Research Institute, in a 2015 podcast interview.

The problem with that kind of argument, Herzog and other experts say, is that it gets out ahead of the evidence (and that not every person is equipped to care for a pet). “Most studies,” said Herzog, “do not show the pattern of results that the pet products industry claims.”

Is having a pet good for you? The fuzzy science of pet ownership Read More »

dogs’-brain-activity-shows-they-recognize-the-names-of-objects

Dogs’ brain activity shows they recognize the names of objects

Wired for science!

Enlarge / Wired for science!

Boglárka Morvai

Needle, a cheerful miniature schnauzer I had as a kid, turned into a ball of unspeakable noise and fury each time she saw a dog called Puma. She hated Puma so much she would go ballistic, barking and growling. Merely whispering the name “Puma” set off the same reaction, as though the sound of it and the idea of the dog it represented were clearly connected deep in Needle’s mind.

A connection between a word and a mental representation of its meaning is called “referential understanding,” and for a very long time, we believed dogs lacked this ability. Now, a study published by a team of Hungarian researchers indicates we might have been wrong.

Practice makes perfect

The idea that dogs couldn’t form associations with language in a referential manner grew out of behavioral studies in which dogs were asked to do a selective fetching task. The canines had a few objects placed in front of them (like a toy or a bone) and then had to fetch the one specifically named by their owner.

“In laboratory conditions, the dogs performed at random, fetching whatever they could grab first, even though their owners claimed they knew the names of the objects,” said Marianna Boros, a researcher at Neuroethology of Communication Lab at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary. “But the problem is when the dogs are not trained for the task, there are hundreds of things that can disturb them. They can be more interested in one specific toy, they may be bored, or they may not understand the task. So many distractions.”

To get around the issue of distractions, her team checked to see if the dogs could understand words passively using EEG brain monitoring. In humans, the EEG reading that is considered a telltale sign of semantic reasoning is the N400 effect.

“The work on the N400 was first published in 1981, and hundreds of studies replicated it since then with different stimuli. Typically, you show images of objects to the subject and say matching or mismatching names. When you measure EEG brain activity, you will see it looks different in match and mismatch scenarios,” explained Lilla Magyari, also a scientist at Neuroethology of Communication Lab and co-author of the study. (It’s called the N400 effect because the peak of this difference appears around 400 milliseconds after an object is presented, Magyari explained.)

The only change the team made to adapt a standard N400 test to dogs was switching the order of stimuli—the words were uttered first, and the matching or mismatching objects were shown second. “Because when they hear the word which activates mental representation of the object, they are expecting to see it. The sound made them more attentive,” said Magyari.

Timing is everything

In the experiment, the dogs started out lying on a mat with EEG gear on their heads in a room with an experimenter or the owner of a different dog. The owner of the dog being tested was separated by a glass pane with controllable opaqueness. “It was important because EEG studies [can] very precisely time the moment of presentation of your stimulus,” said Boros.

Oszkár Dániel Gáti

Sentences spoken by the owners that would get the dogs’ attention—things like “Kun-kun, look! The ball!”—were recorded and played to each dog through a loudspeaker. Then, 2,000 milliseconds after each dog heard the sentence, the pane would turn transparent, and the owner would appear holding a matching or mismatching toy. “Each test lasted for as long as the dog was happy to participate. The moment it started to get up or look away, we just stopped the test, and the dog could leave the mat and we just finished by playing sessions. It was all super dog-friendly,” Boros said.

Dogs’ brain activity shows they recognize the names of objects Read More »

study:-“smarter”-dogs-think-more-like-humans-to-overcome-their-biases

Study: “Smarter” dogs think more like humans to overcome their biases

who’s a smart doggo? —

Both the shape of a dog’s head and cognitive ability determine degree of spatial bias.

dog in a harness approaching a blue dish on the floor

Enlarge / Look at this very good boy taking a test to determine the origin of his spatial bias for a study on how dogs think.

Eniko Kubinyi

Research has shown that if you point at an object, a dog will interpret the gesture as a directional cue, unlike a human toddler, who will more likely focus on the object itself. It’s called spatial bias, and a recent paper published in the journal Ethology offers potential explanations for why dogs interpret the gesture the way that they do. According to researchers at Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, the phenomenon arises from a combination of how dogs see (visual acuity) and how they think, with “smarter” dog breeds prioritizing an object’s appearance as much as its location. This suggests the smarter dogs’ information processing is more similar to humans.

The authors wanted to investigate whether spatial bias in dogs is sensory or cognitive, or a combination of the two. “Very early on, children interpret the gesture as pointing to the object, while dogs take the pointing as a directional cue,” said co-author Ivaylo Iotchev. “In other words, regardless of the intention of the person giving the cue, the meaning for children and dogs is different. This phenomenon has previously been observed in dogs using a variety of behavioral tests, ranging from simple associative learning to imitation, but it had never been studied per se.”

Their experimental sample consisted of dogs used in a previous 2018 study plus dogs participating specifically in the new study, for a total of 82 dogs. The dominant breeds were border collies (19), vizslas (17), and whippets (6). Each animal was brought into a small empty room with their owner and one of the experimenters present. The experimenter stood 3 meters away from the dog and owner. There was a training period using different plastic plates to teach the dogs to associate either the presence or absence of an object, or its spatial location, with the presence or absence of food. Then they tested the dogs on a series of tasks.

An object feature conditioning test involving a white round plate and a black square plate.

Enlarge / An object feature conditioning test involving a white round plate and a black square plate.

I.B. Iotchev et al., 2023

For instance, one task required dogs to participate in a maximum of 50 trials to teach them to learn a location of a treat that was always either on the left or right plate. For another task, the experimenter placed a white round plate and a black square plate in the middle of the room. The dogs were exposed to each semi-randomly but only received food in one type of plate. Learning was determined by how quickly each dog ran to the correct plate.

Once the dogs learned those first two tasks, they were given another more complicated task in which either the direction or the object was reversed: if the treat had previously been placed on the right, now it would be found on the left, and if it had previously been placed on a white round plate, it would now be found on the black square one. The researchers found that dogs learned faster when they had to choose the direction, i.e., whether the treat was located on the left or the right. It was harder for the dogs to learn whether a treat would be found on a black square plate or a white round plate.

The shorter a dog's head, the higher the

Enlarge / The shorter a dog’s head, the higher the “cephalic index” (CI).

I.B. Iotchev et al., 2023

Next the team needed to determine differences between the visual and cognitive abilities of the dogs in order to learn whether the spatial bias was sensory or cognitively based, or both. Selective breeding of dogs has produced breeds with different visual capacities, so another aspect of the study involved measuring the length of a dog’s head, which prior research has shown is correlated with visual acuity. The metric used to measure canine heads is known as the “cephalic index” (CI), defined as the ratio of the head’s maximum width multiplied by 100, then divided by the head’s maximum length.

The shorter a dog’s head, the more similar their visual acuity is to human vision. That’s because there is a higher concentration of retinal ganglion cells in the center of their field of vision, making vision sharper and giving such dogs binocular depth vision. The testing showed dogs with better visual acuity, and who also scored higher on the series of cognitive tests, also exhibited less spatial bias. This suggests that canine spatial bias is not simply a sensory matter but is also influenced by how they think. “Smarter” dogs have less spatial bias.

As always, there are a few caveats. Most notably, the authors acknowledge that their sample consisted exclusively of dogs from Hungary kept as pets, and thus their results might not generalize to stray dogs, for example, or dogs from other geographical regions and cultures. Still, “we tested their memory, attention skills, and perseverance,” said co-author Eniko Kubinyi. “We found that dogs with better cognitive performance in the more difficult spatial bias task linked information to objects as easily as to places. We also see that as children develop, spatial bias decreases with increasing intelligence.”

DOI: Ethology, 2023. 10.1111/eth.13423  (About DOIs).

Study: “Smarter” dogs think more like humans to overcome their biases Read More »