Abstract
Robots offer new possibilities for investigating animal social behaviour. This method enhances controllability and reproducibility of experimental techniques, and it allows also the experimental separation of the effects of bodily appearance (embodiment) and behaviour. In the present study we examined dogs’ interactive behaviour in a problem solving task (in which the dog has no access to the food) with three different social partners, two of which were robots and the third a human behaving in a robot-like manner. The Mechanical UMO (Unidentified Moving Object) and the Mechanical Human differed only in their embodiment, but showed similar behaviour toward the dog. In contrast, the Social UMO was interactive, showed contingent responsiveness and goal-directed behaviour and moved along varied routes. The dogs showed shorter looking and touching duration, but increased gaze alternation toward the Mechanical Human than to the Mechanical UMO. This suggests that dogs’ interactive behaviour may have been affected by previous experience with typical humans. We found that dogs also looked longer and showed more gaze alternations between the food and the Social UMO compared to the Mechanical UMO. These results suggest that dogs form expectations about an unfamiliar moving object within a short period of time and they recognise some social aspects of UMOs’ behaviour. This is the first evidence that interactive behaviour of a robot is important for evoking dogs’ social responsiveness.
Highlights
The behaviour ecological approach defines social behaviour as interactions between individuals of the same species that has fitness consequences [1], and which, at the functional level, is organised for achieving different goals such as finding a suitable mate, evading predators, cooperating in the acquisition of food etc
Gaze alternations between the partner and the place of food became more frequent with repeated trials in both conditions (F5,55 = 3.35, p = 0.01), and on the whole dogs in the Mechanical Human condition displayed more gaze alternations than dogs in the Mechanical Unidentified Moving Object (UMO) condition (F1,47 = 4.5, p = 0.038) (Figure 3/b)
More dogs touched the partner in the Mechanical UMO condition (F1,46 = 10.38, p = 0.002), this behaviour did not change with the trials (F5,95 = 1.02, p = 0.4) (Figure 3/c)
Summary
The behaviour ecological approach defines social behaviour as interactions between individuals of the same species that has fitness consequences [1], and which, at the functional level, is organised for achieving different goals such as finding a suitable mate, evading predators, cooperating in the acquisition of food etc. One well known example for this is the collaboration between honeyguide birds (Indicator indicator) and African tribal people in order to find honey by locating beehives in the forest [4]. In another case Bshary et al show that the grouper (Plectropomus pessuliferus) and the giant moray eel (Gymnothorax javanicus) hunt cooperatively, probably, because they have complementary behavioural skills, and the two partners, belonging to different species, are able to coordinate their actions at the behavioural level, that is, the grouper uses a specific visual signal to lure the moray eel on a hunting trip [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
