Book contents
- Pointing
- Pointing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction to Pointing:
- Part One Culture and Development
- Part Two Evolutionary Perspectives
- 13 Pointing in Chimpanzees Who Use American Sign Language
- 14 Are We Missing the Point?:
- 15 The Nature of the Point:
- 16 Changing the Focus:
- 17 The Neural Foundations of Gestural Communication in Captive Chimpanzees
- 18 Do Baboons Point?:
- 19 Pointing with Your Nose:
- 20 Pointing and the Object Choice Task:
- 21 The Use of Human Social Cues in Domestic Farm Animals
- Index
- References
20 - Pointing and the Object Choice Task:
Findings, Flaws, and Future Directions
from Part Two - Evolutionary Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 June 2026
By
Book contents
- Pointing
- Pointing
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction to Pointing:
- Part One Culture and Development
- Part Two Evolutionary Perspectives
- 13 Pointing in Chimpanzees Who Use American Sign Language
- 14 Are We Missing the Point?:
- 15 The Nature of the Point:
- 16 Changing the Focus:
- 17 The Neural Foundations of Gestural Communication in Captive Chimpanzees
- 18 Do Baboons Point?:
- 19 Pointing with Your Nose:
- 20 Pointing and the Object Choice Task:
- 21 The Use of Human Social Cues in Domestic Farm Animals
- Index
- References
Summary
The Object Choice Task (OCT) is widely used to assess an individual or group’s ability to comprehend human deictic cues, most commonly, pointing cues. Since its inception in the 1990s, findings from OCT studies have been used as the basis for claims about species-wide capacities in understanding human communicative gestures, and for the proliferation of theories regarding their phylogenetic histories. However, the extent to which such theories can be supported by the data on which they stand is questionable due to a number of procedural and methodological inconsistencies in cross-species applications of the OCT. This chapter reviews the findings of OCT studies, with a particular focus on nonhuman primates and domestic dogs, discusses the systematic inconsistencies in sampling and procedural aspects of the OCT across the literature, and emphasizes the necessity for improved testing and reporting in the conducting of OCT studies.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- PointingCulture, Development, and Evolution, pp. 372 - 388Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2026
References
Anderson, J. R., Sallaberry, P., & Barbier, H. (1995). Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 49, 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80168-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharjee, D., Mandal, S., Shit, P., Varghese, M. G., Vishnoi, A., & Bhadra, A. (2020). Free-ranging dogs are capable of utilizing complex human pointing cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02818CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhattacharjee, D., Nikhil, D. N., Gupta, S., Sau, S., Sarkar, R., Biswas, A., Banarjee, A., Babu, D., Mehta, D., & Bhadra, A. (2017a). Free-ranging dogs show age-related plasticity in their ability to follow human pointing. PLoS ONE, 12(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180643CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhattacharjee, D., Sau, S., & Bhadra, A. (2018). Free-ranging dogs understand human intentions and adjust their behavioral responses accordingly. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00232Google Scholar
Bhattacharjee, D., Sau, S., Das, J., & Bhadra, A. (2017b). Free-ranging dogs prefer petting over food in repeated interactions with unfamiliar humans. Journal of Experimental Biology, 220, 4654–4660. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.166371Google ScholarPubMed
Bräuer, J., Kaminski, J., Riedel, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Making inferences about the location of hidden food: Social dog, causal ape. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120(1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bray, E. E., Gnanadesikan, G. E., Horschler, D. J., Levy, K. M., Kennedy, B. S., Famula, T. R., & MacLean, E. L. (2020). Early-emerging and highly heritable sensitivity to human communication in dogs. Current Biology, 31, 3132–3136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.04.055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrnit, J. T. (2009). Gorillas’ (Gorilla gorilla) use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues in an object-choice task. Animal Cognition, 12, 401–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0200-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1994). Production and comprehension of referential pointing by orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108(4), 307–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.108.4.307CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carballo, F., Freidin, E., Casanave, E., & Bentosela, M. (2016). Following human pointing: Where do dogs (Canis familiaris) look at to find food? Behavioural Processes, 128, 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspar, K., Mader, L., Pallasdies, F., Lindenmeier, M., & Begall, S. (2018). Captive gibbons (Hylobatidae) use different referential cues in an object-choice task: Insights into lesser ape cognition and manual laterality. PeerJ, 6, e5348. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., Elsherif, M. M., & Leavens, D. A. (2019). Ontogeny vs. phylogeny in primate/canid comparisons: A meta-analysis of the object-choice task. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 105, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H., & Leavens, D. A. (2019). Testing dogs in ape-like conditions: The effect of a barrier on dogs’ performance on the object-choice task. Animal Cognition, 22(6), 1063–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-019-01297-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H., & Leavens, D. A. (2021). The performance of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) on two versions of the object choice task. Animal Cognition, 24(5), 1087–1098. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01500-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D’Aniello, B., Alterisio, A., Scandurra, A., Petremolo, E., Iommelli, M. R., & Aria, M. (2017). What’s the point? Golden and Labrador retrievers living in kennels do not understand human pointing gestures. Animal Cognition, 20, 777–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1098-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorey, N. R., Conover, A. M., & Udell, M. A. R. (2014). Interspecific communication from people to horses (Equus ferus caballus) is influenced by different horsemanship training styles. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128(4), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essler, J. L., Schwartz, L. P., Rossettie, M. S., & Judge, P. G. (2017). Capuchin monkeys’ use of human and conspecific cues to solve a hidden object-task. Animal Cognition, 20, 985–998. https://doi.org10.1007/s10071-017-1118-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fichtel, C., Dinter, K., & Kappeler, P. M. (2020). The lemur baseline: How lemurs compare to monkeys and apes in the Primate Cognition Test Battery. PeerJ, 8, e10025 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10025CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gácsi, M., Kara, E., Belényi, B., Topál, J., & Miklósi, A. (2009a). The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension in dogs. Animal Cognition, 12(3), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0208-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gácsi, M., McGreevy, P., Kara, E., & Miklósi, A. (2009b). Effects of selection for attention and cooperation in dogs. Behavioural and Brain Functions, 5, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-5-31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634–1636. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113(2), 173–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.113.2.173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Human-like social skills in dogs? TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzaya, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hernádi, A., Kis, A., Turcsán, B., & Topál, J. (2012). Man’s underground best friend: Domestic ferrets, unlike the wild forms, show evidence of dog-like socio-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE, 7(8), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernandez-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360–1367. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1146282CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, W. D., Mulholland, M. M., Mareno, M. C., Webb, S. J. N., & Schapiro, S. J. (2022). Neuroanatomical correlates of individual differences in the object choice task in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1057722CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopkins, W. D., Russell, J. L., McIntyre, J., & Leavens, D. A. (2013). Are chimpanzees really so poor at understanding imperative pointing? Some new data and an alternative view of canine and ape social cognition. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itakura, S., Agnetta, B., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Chimpanzee use of human and conspecific cues to locate hidden food. Developmental Science, 2(4), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itakura, S., & Tanaka, M. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues during object-choice tasks by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), an orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus) and human infants (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112(2), 119–126. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0735-7036.112.2.119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jarvis, T., & Hall, N. J. (2020). Development of point following behaviors in shelter dogs. Learning and Behaviour, 48, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00415-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirchhofer, K. C., Zimmermann, F., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2012). Dogs (Canis familiaris), but not chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), understand imperative pointing. PLoS ONE, 8(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030913Google Scholar
Kraus, C., van Waveren, C., & Huebner, F. (2014). Distractible dogs, constant cats? A test of the distraction hypothesis in two domestic species. Animal Behaviour, 93, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.04.026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, M. A., Udell, M. A. R., Leavens, D. A., & Skopos, L. (2018). Animal pointing: Changing trends and findings from 30 years of research. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 132, 326–345. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarowski, L., & Dorman, D. C. (2015). A comparison of pet and purpose-bred research dog (Canis Familiaris) performance on human-guided object-choice tasks. Behavioural Processes, 110, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.09.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazarowski, L., Thompkins, A., Krichbaum, S., Waggoner, L. P., Deshpande, G., & Katz, J. S. (2020). Comparing pet and detection dogs (Canis familiaris) on two aspects of social cognition. Learning and Behavior, 48, 432–443. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-020-00431-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leavens, D. A. (2018). The cognitive implications of intentional communication: A multi-faceted mirror. In Di Paolo, L., F. Di Vincenzo, , & De Petrillo, F. (Eds.), Evolution of primate social cognition: Interdisciplinary evolution research. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Leavens, D. A. (2014). The plight of the sense-making ape. In Cappuccio, M. & Froese, T. (Eds.), Enactive cognition at the edge of sense-making (pp. 81–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leavens, D. A., & Bard, K. A. (2011). Environmental influences on joint attention in great apes: Implications for human cognition. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10, 9–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.10.1.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2010). BIZARRE chimpanzees do not represent “the chimpanzee”. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leavens, D. A., Bard, K. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2019). The mismeasure of ape social cognition. Animal Cognition, 22, 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1119-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liehrmann, O., Ollila, A., Lummaa, V., Lansade, L., & Seltmann, M. W. (2023). First report of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) response to human-given cues. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 137(4), 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000353CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyn, H. (2010). Environment, methodology, and the object choice task in apes: Evidence for declarative comprehension and implications for the evolution of language. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.8.2010.4.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyn, H., Broadway, M., Jett, S. E., Samuelson, M. M., Christopher, J., & Chenkin, B. (2021). The effects of distance on pointing comprehension in shelter dogs. Animal Cognition, 24, 855–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01480-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyn, H., Russell, J. L., & Hopkins, W. D. (2010). The impact of environment on the comprehension of declarative gestures in apes. Psychological Science, 21(3), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610362218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclean, E. L., Herrmann, E., Suchindran, S., & Hare, B. (2017). Individual differences in cooperative communicative skills are more similar between dogs and humans than chimpanzees. Animal Behaviour, 126, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maros, K., Gácsi, M., & Miklósi, A. (2008). Comprehension of human pointing gestures in horses (Equus caballus). Animal Cognition, 11, 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-008-0136-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mäses, M., & Wascher, C. A. F. (2022). Assessing cats’ (Felis catus) sensitivity to human pointing gestures. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.03.12.484069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miklósi, A., Polgárdi, R., Topál, J. & Csányi, V. (1998). Use of experimenter-given cues in dogs. Animal Cognition, 1, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miklósi, A., Pongrácz, P., Lakatos, G., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2005). A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 119(2), 179–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.179CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miklósi, A., & Soproni, K. (2006). A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Animal Cognition, 9(2), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R., Reed, E., & Alexander, L. (2018). Functions of pointing by humans, and dogs’ responses, during dog–human play between familiar and unfamiliar players. Animal Behavior and Cognition, 5(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.26451/abc.05.02.01.2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Cooperation and human cognition: The Vygotskyan intelligence hypothesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 362, 639–648. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2009). The performance of bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in two versions of an object-choice task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123(3), 304–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulcahy, N. J., & Hedge, V. (2012). Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task? Animal Behaviour, 83, 313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.11.019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawroth, C., Ebersbach, M., & von Borrell, E. (2014). Juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) use human-given cues in an object choice task. Animal Cognition, 17(3), 701–713. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071–013-0702-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nawroth, C., Martin, Z. M., & McElligot, A. G. (2020). Goats follow human pointing gestures in an object choice task. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neiworth, J. J., Burman, M. A., Basile, B. M., & Lickteig, M. T. (2002). Use of experimenter-given cues in visual co-orienting and in an object-choice task by a New World monkey species, cotton top tamarins (Saguinus Oedipus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 116(1), 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.116.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., & Mulcahy, N. J. (2019). Reassessing shelter dogs’ use of human communicative cues in the standard object-choice task. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0213166. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213166CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pack, A. A., & Herman, L. M. (2004). Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) comprehend the referent of both static and dynamic human gazing and pointing in an object-choice task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(2), 160–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.118.2.160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peignot, P., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). Use of experimenter-given manual and facial cues by gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) in an object-choice task. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113(3), 253–260. http://doi.org/10.1037//0735-7036.113.3.253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proops, L., Walton, M., & McComb, K. (2010). The use of human-given cues by domestic horses, Equus caballus, during an object choice task. Animal Behaviour, 79(6), 1205–1209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.02.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedel, J., Schumann, K., Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The early ontogeny of human–dog communication. Animal Behaviour, 75(3), 1003–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.08.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, J. L., Lyn, H., Schaeffer, J. A., & Hopkins, W. D. (2011). The role of socio-communicative rearing environments in the development of social and physical cognition in apes. Developmental Science, 14, 1459–1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01090.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salamon, A., Uccheddu, S., Csepregi, M., Miklósi, A., & Gácsi, M. (2023). Dogs outperform cats both in their testability and relying on human pointing gestures: A comparative study. Scientific Reports, 13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45008-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salomons, H., Smith, K. C. M., Callahan-Beckel, M., Callahan, M., Levy, K., Kennedy, B. S., Bray, E. E., Gnanadesikan, G. E., Horschler, D. J., Gruen, M., Tan, J., White, P., vonHoldt, B. M., MacLean, E., & Hare, B. (2021). Cooperative communication with humans evolved to emerge early in domestic dogs. Current Biology, 31, 3137–3144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheumann, M., & Call, J. (2004). The use of experimenter-given cues by South African fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus). Animal Cognition, 7, 224–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0216-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmitt, V., Schloegl, C., & Fischer, J. (2014). Seeing the experimenter influences the response to pointing cues in long-tailed macaques. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091348CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smet, A. F., & Byrne, R. W. (2013). African elephants can use human pointing cues to find hidden food. Current Biology, 23(20), 2033–2037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.037CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, B. P., & Litchfield, C. A. (2010). Dingoes (Canis dingo) can use human social cues to locate hidden food. Animal Cognition, 13(2), 367–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-009-0287-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Gluckman, A. (1997). Comprehension of novel communicative signs by apes and human children. Child Development, 68(6), 1067–1080. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01985.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008a). Wolves outperform dogs in following human social cues. Animal Behaviour, 76, 1767–1773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.07.028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, M. A. R., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). The performance of stray dogs (Canis familiaris) living in a shelter on human-guided object-choice tasks. Animal Behaviour, 79, 717–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, M. A. R., Giglio, R. F., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2008b). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human gestures but not nonhuman tokens to find hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 122(1), 84–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.122.1.84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, M. A. R., Hall, N. J., Morrison, J., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2013). Point topography and within-session learning are important predictors of pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance on human-guided tasks. Revista Argentina de Ciencias de Comportamiento, 5(2), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, M. A. R., Spencer, J. M., Dorey, N. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2012). Human-socialized wolves follow diverse human gestures … and they may not be alone. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 25, 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udell, M. A. R., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2010). Ontogeny and phylogeny: Both are essential to human-sensitive behaviour in the genus Canis. Animal Behaviour, 79, e9–e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.11.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Virányi, Z., Gácsi, M., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Belényi, B., Ujfalussy, D., & Miklósi, A. (2008). Comprehension of human pointing gestures in young human-reared wolves (Canis lupus) and dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal Cognition, 11, 373–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071–007-0127-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaine, I., Domeniconi, C., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2015). The ontogeny of human point following in dogs: When younger dogs outperform older. Behavioural Processes, 119, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.07.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.2 AAA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.2 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), offering more comprehensive accessibility measures for a broad range
of users and attains the highest
(AAA)
level of WCAG compliance, optimising the user experience by meeting the most extensive
accessibility guidelines.
Content Navigation
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.
Visualised data also available as non-graphical data
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
You can access graphs or charts in a text or tabular format, so you are not excluded if you cannot process visual displays.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.