The Cognitive Dog

1. The Cognitive Dog • Class 13: Word Use

2. Where we have been... • Effect of genes and development... • people are its niche • social animal • ability to imprint on other species • later and much less intense fear period

3. Where we have been... • The effect is an animal that has the potential to... • selectively attend to members of species on which it has imprinted • and level of fear is low enough (or missing) so that it doesn’t interfere with attention or learning.

4. Where have we been, well actually next week? • Dogs as social animals do a ton of observational learning... • Stimulus & local enhancement • Observational conditioning • Goal emulation (???) • Simple forms of observational learning go a long way...

5. Where have we been? • Dogs may use Simple but Reliable Enough rules to make sense of their world... • We have seen lots of examples of behavior which is consistent with this hypothesis from invisible displacement to detours to observational learning...

6. Where have we been? • We have looked at how dogs may use SBRE rules with respect to making sense of human behavior... • Gestures as cues • Attention as cues • Words as cues

7. Where have we been? • When dogs learn and use human cues to inform their behavioral choices, it is best to view it as a special case of... • Interspecific Cue Learning (ICL), and • Interspecific Cue Use (ICU) • We use Interspecific Cue Learning (ICL) and Use (ICU) to emphasize... • Interspecific: LGD that imprint on sheep, may selectively attend to sheep and not people and use sheep cues, and not human cues to guide their behavior... • Cue learning and use: simple learning mechanism may suffice (not a special mechanism in of itself...)

8. So the big question... • When dogs learn and use human cues to inform their behavioral choices is it, • A special adaption in of itself? • Or an emergent consequence of the interaction of • imprinting & reduced fear? • observational SBRE rule learning and use

9. Words as cues...

10. Words as cues... • The question isn’t whether pet dogs use words as cues to guide their behavior, but rather... • distinguishing between use vs. understanding • role of other cues in word use • special ability to learn words(?)

11. Fellow: “the famous movie actor dog”

12. Fellow... • 4 or 5 year-old GSD trained from early age to respond to words as cues... • Owner claimed Fellow knew 400 or more words • “specific objects, acts or places...” Warden, C. J. and L. H. Warner (1928). "The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with a report on the ability of the noted dog "Fellow" to respond to verbal stimuli." The Quarterly Review of Biology 3(1): 1-28.

13. Fellow... • “He had quite successfully played, indeed, the usual roles alloted to his species in movie-melodrama–those of protecting the helpless and saving the drowning child...” • “His claim to special attention lay in his accomplishment of responding to a large number of human words in some sense or other, and the problem was to determine in precisely what sense.”

14. The first test... • Suite in the Pasadena Hotel in NYC... • Mr. Herbert stationed in the bathroom and gave cues through a closed door... • Warden, Warner and Fellow in the living room.. • Mr. Herbert varied the pitch, intensity and intonation of his voice when giving cues...

15. Fellow: the first test... • “Although not perfect, the dog’s performance was on the whole quite satisfactory... it was evident that visual cues from Mr. Herbert were quite unnecessary to successful response in many cases at least, the essential stimuli being auditory in nature”

16. Fellow: the second test... • Lab at Columbia in a more controlled situation (e.g., Mr. Herbert AND researchers hidden behind screens...) • “repeat test to rule out possibility of visual cues” • “secure data regarding total number of words to which the dog would thus respond” • “test the ability to identify and retrieve a given object from among several upon command”

17. Fellow: the second test... • A point worth noting: • “The use of long test periods [one to two hours] was unfortunate inasmuch that Fellow often gave every indication of being weary of his task” • “On all three days the command-performance test was given after Fellow had been working for an hour or more at the retrieving-objects test... and naturally he was not at his best on all occasions.”

18. Fellow: Type 1 and Type 2 Cues • “It soon became apparent that certain commands could be carried out as perfectly under our test conditions as when the master was present but that others could not.” • Two types of tasks... • Type 1: performed correctly using acoustic cue only • Type 2: requires both acoustic and visual cue to perform correctly

19. Type 1 cues • Typically consist of “some movement ... in whatever place he happened to be at the moment” • Does not require “very definite identification of object or place” Warden, C. J. and L. H. Warner (1928). "The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with a report on the ability of the noted dog "Fellow" to respond to verbal stimuli." The Quarterly Review of Biology 3(1): 1-28.

20. Type 2 cues • “required the animal to identify and orient himself toward some object or place after the command had been given” Warden, C. J. and L. H. Warner (1928). "The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with a report on the ability of the noted dog "Fellow" to respond to verbal stimuli." The Quarterly Review of Biology 3(1): 1-28.

21. Mr. Herbert hidden behind screen Mr. Herbert visible but giving conflicting cues* Warden, C. J. and L. H. Warner (1928). "The sensory capacities and intelligence of dogs, with a report on the ability of the noted dog "Fellow" to respond to verbal stimuli." The Quarterly Review of Biology 3(1): 1-28. Tests of Type 2 Cues... • *Repeated with blindfold, and no difference in performance

22. W&W’s conclusions... • “The fact that the dog did not fail at all on the more than 50 different commands of type 1... shows very clearly the ability of the dog to form associations between sounds, or verbal patterns and definite acts on his part” • With respect to type 2 tasks: “it is only the object, or place in in connection with which the act is to be performed , and not the act itself that seemed to require visual cues”

23. What to take from this... • Dogs can learn associations between words and actions • non-referential actions (e.g., sit, lie-down, bark) • referential actions (e.g., “get the ball”, “crate”...) • they may rely to a greater or lesser extent on additional cues (e.g., visual) when available to help identify the referenced object or location

24. Scuppers & referential cues... • I say “crate” facing the sink and Scuppers runs over to his crate under the stairs. Conclusion: Scuppers knows that “crate” refers to his crate. • But, if I move the crate, show Scuppers where it is, and I say “crate”, Scuppers runs over to the location under the stairs where his crate used to be (even though he can see the crate in its new location.) Conclusion: “crate” refers to something, but just what is less clear...

25. Retrieving objects... • Some referential actions seem easier than others for dogs to perform in the absence of visual cues... • and this brings us to Rico, the over-achieving Border Collie who is especially adept at associating a novel word with the act of fetching a novel object...

26. Rico: the over-achieving border collie

27. Rico the wonder dog • New Scientist (June 10, 2004).: “A word learning pet dog has given scientists clues that some animals may have the comprehension necessary for language, even though they cannot actually talk.”

28. 1. Get the blue dinosaur (familiar) 2. Get the red doll (familiar) 3. Get the white bunny (novel) What do you see?

29. Rico: the beginnings... • ‘Introduced’ to fetching at 10 months. • 3 objects in 3 locations • Asked to retrieve an object, if correct, rewarded with food or play. • Introduced to novel objects • Presented to him and said name ‘2 or 3’ times • Let him play with new item • Integrated with other objects

30. Rico experiment • Test 1: correctly retrieve known objects • 20 sessions of 10 known objects each. • In each session, Rico was asked to retrieve 2 randomly chosen objects from adjacent room. • Reward: play or food if correct. • 37 out of 40 correct

31. Rico Experiment • Test 2: ability to fast map • 10 sessions each introducing a novel object among 7 familiar objects • 3 trials: • Retrieve familiar object on trial 1, and maybe 2 • Asked to retrieve novel object using novel name on trial 2 or 3 • Correct on 7 out of 10 sessions

32. Rico Experiment • Test 3: long term retention of novel label (4 weeks) • 6 sessions each with 3 familiar, 3 totally novel, and a formerly novel object from test 2 (total of 9 objects) • 1st trial asked to retrieve familiar object, on trial 2 or 3 asked to retrieve formerly novel object • Correct on 3 out of 6 sessions (on par with 3 year olds.) Failure mode: retrieved one of the novel objects

33. Rico Experiment • Test 4: Retention over 10 minutes • 6 sessions each with a novel object. • Ran test 2, wait 10 minutes, and then ran test 3. • 4 out of 6 correct.

34. Kaminski et al’s claim • “Rico’s performance can be decomposed into a set of simpler mechanisms... • Acquisition of principle that objects have labels... • A general learning mechanism, namely learning by exclusion... • Ability to store that knowledge in memory”

35. Words as labels... • To most of us the word “Sock” refers to category of object, independent of... • color, material, size, smell, bruce’s old gym sock • a sock placed on one’s ear is still a sock • We can answer questions such as “how many socks”, “any socks”, “how many white socks” without fetching them

36. What do words mean to Rico? • Bloom’s question • Does “sock” refer to a category of object, or • Does it refer to the act of fetching a particular object? • Experiment doesn’t allow us to say either way Bloom, P. (2004). Can a Dog Learn a Word? Science. 304: 1605-1606.

37. Do dogs use categories? • The behavior of dogs seems to reflect an ability to recognize certain categories of things at least, e.g., dogs, cats... • But we don’t know... • what features dogs use to categorize those things that it can categorize (how does it recognize an individual cat as being a member of the cat category.) • extent to which category can be separated from action

38. Train: “get the cone” Test: “get the cone” An experiment yet to be done... • Color or shape?

39. Train: “get the cone” Test: “get the cone” To what features do they attend?

40. An aside on bees... • Bees learn to distinguish nectar sources based on • time of day • color of flower • odor • Do so in a predictable order too!!

41. Markman’s question... • How does one distinguish “referential word use from mere association”? • “My BC is smarter than your middle school student” may have hit too close to home :-) • Her complaints... • Effect of reinforcement for retrieving novel object • No control for baseline novelty preference

42. Bruce’s response... • Rico’s ability to “fast map” doesn’t appear to be in dispute. This ability is very cool. Some follow up questions though... • Is it learned skill or gene X development • Is Rico’s ability unique, unique to certain dogs, breeds? • Does it reflect a general ability in dogs to learn acoustic patterns very quickly? If so, it is shared with other canids?

43. An aside on rats... • Rats can learn to differentiate between spoken dutch and japanese sentences, but can’t do so if sentences are presented backward. • Does this reflect an interplay between aspects of the acoustic structure of human language and auditory perception?

44. An aside on rats... • “If languages have been shaped by, among other factors, constraints in the human auditory system, the ability to bootstrap linguistic regularities from low-level cues, such as rhythm, may represent the use... of an already-existing ability present in the mammalian auditory system” Toro, J. M., J. B. Trobalon, et al. (2005). "Effects of Backward Speech and Speaker Variability in Language Discrimination by Rats." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 31(1): 95-100.

45. Bruce’s response... • Since I am interested in what it says about dogs... • That it works using mere association is a good thing, so reinforcement is not a problem. • fetching itself may be reinforcing... • bias to attend to novelty is cool: another SBRE rule that perhaps we should think about using more

46. Novelty preference • Bias to attend to novel objects especially in familiar environment... • Fetching as a self-rewarding behavior • Rewarded for retrieving novel object, and fast maps cue to action of fetching that particular novel object. • Aided and abetted by some bias toward mutual exclusion...

47. Being wicked smart about how smart to be...