Sensing sociality in dogs: what may make an interactive robot social?

This study investigated whether dogs would engage in social interactions with an unfamiliar robot, utilize the communicative signals it provides and to examine whether the level of sociality shown by the robot affects the dogs’ performance. We hypothesized that dogs would react to the communicative signals of a robot more successfully if the robot showed interactive social behaviour in general (towards both humans and dogs) than if it behaved in a machinelike, asocial way. The experiment consisted of an interactive phase followed by a pointing session, both with a human and a robotic experimenter. In the interaction phase, dogs witnessed a 6-min interaction episode between the owner and a human experimenter and another 6-min interaction episode between the owner and the robot. Each interaction episode was followed by the pointing phase in which the human/robot experimenter indicated the location of hidden food by using pointing gestures (two-way choice test). The results showed that in the interaction phase, the dogs’ behaviour towards the robot was affected by the differential exposure. Dogs spent more time staying near the robot experimenter as compared to the human experimenter, with this difference being even more pronounced when the robot behaved socially. Similarly, dogs spent more time gazing at the head of the robot experimenter when the situation was social. Dogs achieved a significantly lower level of performance (finding the hidden food) with the pointing robot than with the pointing human; however, separate analysis of the robot sessions suggested that gestures of the socially behaving robot were easier for the dogs to comprehend than gestures of the asocially behaving robot. Thus, the level of sociality shown by the robot was not enough to elicit the same set of social behaviours from the dogs as was possible with humans, although sociality had a positive effect on dog–robot interactions.

[1]  Peter K. McGregor,et al.  Signalling in Territorial Systems: A Context for Individual Identification, Ranging and Eavesdropping , 1993 .

[2]  Shaun W. Lawson,et al.  Interaction with a zoomorphic robot that exhibits canid mechanisms of behaviour , 2008, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[3]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  A comparative approach to dogs’ (Canis familiaris) and human infants’ comprehension of various forms of pointing gestures , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[4]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Verbal attention getting as a key factor in social learning between dog (Canis familiaris) and human. , 2004, Journal of comparative psychology.

[5]  C. Wynne,et al.  Ontogeny's impacts on human–dog communication , 2008, Animal Behaviour.

[6]  S. Marshall-Pescini,et al.  Is your choice my choice? The owners’ effect on pet dogs’ (Canis lupus familiaris) performance in a food choice task , 2007, Animal Cognition.

[7]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Differential Sensitivity to Human Communication in Dogs, Wolves, and Human Infants , 2009, Science.

[8]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Analysis of visual communication between human and dog Gabriella Lakatos , 2010 .

[9]  M. Tomasello,et al.  How dogs know when communication is intended for them. , 2012, Developmental science.

[10]  Márta Gácsi,et al.  The effect of development and individual differences in pointing comprehension of dogs , 2009, Animal Cognition.

[11]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  The role of visual cues in the comprehension of the human pointing signals in dogs. , 2007 .

[12]  S. Marshall-Pescini,et al.  Social eavesdropping in the domestic dog , 2011, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  Ádám Miklósi,et al.  Successful application of video-projected human images for signalling to dogs , 2003 .

[14]  L. Steels Social learning and verbal communication with humanoid robots , 2001 .

[15]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young infants' reasoning about hidden objects: evidence from violation-of-expectation tasks with test trials only , 2004, Cognition.

[16]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  2.5-Month-Old Infants' Reasoning about When Objects Should and Should Not Be Occluded , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus , 2004, Behavioural Processes.

[18]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Perseverative responding in a violation-of-expectation task in 6.5-month-old infants , 2003, Cognition.

[19]  Ádám Miklósi,et al.  Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) flexibly adjust their human-directed behavior to the actions of their human partners in a problem situation , 2011, Animal Cognition.

[20]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Explaining Dog Wolf Differences in Utilizing Human Pointing Gestures: Selection for Synergistic Shifts in the Development of Some Social Skills , 2009, PloS one.

[21]  G. Csibra,et al.  Natural pedagogy , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[22]  R. J. Young,et al.  Do domestic dogs show any evidence of being able to count? , 2002, Animal Cognition.

[23]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  A comparative analysis of animals' understanding of the human pointing gesture , 2006, Animal Cognition.

[24]  N. Rooney,et al.  Social cognition in the domestic dog: behaviour of spectators towards participants in interspecific games , 2006, Animal Behaviour.

[25]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[26]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Clever Hans : the horse of Mr. Von Osten , 1911 .

[27]  Gabriella Lakatos,et al.  Comprehension and utilisation of pointing gestures and gazing in dog–human communication in relatively complex situations , 2011, Animal Cognition.

[28]  M. Tomasello Origins of human communication , 2008 .

[29]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  The Domestication of Social Cognition in Dogs , 2002, Science.

[30]  S. Marshall-Pescini,et al.  Social referencing in dog-owner dyads? , 2011, Animal Cognition.

[31]  Ádám Miklósi,et al.  Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs , 2001 .

[32]  Á. Miklósi,et al.  Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention , 2004, Animal Cognition.