Comparing Pears to Apples: Unlike Dogs, Cats Need Habituation before Lab Tests.

Stefania Uccheddu, Ádám Miklósi, Sarolt Gintner, Márta Gácsi
{"title":"Comparing Pears to Apples: Unlike Dogs, Cats Need Habituation before Lab Tests.","authors":"Stefania Uccheddu,&nbsp;Ádám Miklósi,&nbsp;Sarolt Gintner,&nbsp;Márta Gácsi","doi":"10.3390/ani12213046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on the socio-cognitive skills of different species often benefit from comparative experiments, however, the ecology of the species and development of the individuals may differently determine how they react to the same test situation. In this study, our aims were twofold: to observe and compare the spontaneous behaviour of companion cats and dogs in the same novel environment, and to habituate them (if needed) to the novel environment in the presence of their owners and an unfamiliar experimenter. The behaviour of 62 family cats, 31 experienced (which had the opportunity to meet strangers and explore unfamiliar places) and 31 inexperienced cats, and 27 family dogs was compared in an unfamiliar room. The subjects' behaviour was coded during the first five minutes in the presence of two passive persons, their owners, and an unfamiliar experimenter. Then, based on a set of rules, first the owner, and then the experimenter tried to initiate interactions with the subjects and the subjects' willingness to interact was evaluated. To pass the habituation test, subjects were expected to play with the experimenter or accept food from them. All dogs passed the test on the first occasion, while almost 60% of the cats failed. The cats' experience did not play a significant role, in fact, younger cats passed more easily. We found marked differences between dogs and cats in all behavioural variables; compared to dogs, cats spent more time crouching and close to their box, while less time exploring or close to the owner. We did not find a difference in the cats' behaviour based on their experience. Our results support the hypothesis that unlike dogs, cats need extensive habituation in a novel environment. This could partially be explained by the difference in the ecology and/or domestication process of the species, although developmental effects cannot be excluded. Our findings have fundamental consequences not only for the considerations of the testability of cats and on the interpretation of their data collected in the laboratory, but in a more general sense on developing comparative experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":519482,"journal":{"name":"Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9657355/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12213046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Research on the socio-cognitive skills of different species often benefit from comparative experiments, however, the ecology of the species and development of the individuals may differently determine how they react to the same test situation. In this study, our aims were twofold: to observe and compare the spontaneous behaviour of companion cats and dogs in the same novel environment, and to habituate them (if needed) to the novel environment in the presence of their owners and an unfamiliar experimenter. The behaviour of 62 family cats, 31 experienced (which had the opportunity to meet strangers and explore unfamiliar places) and 31 inexperienced cats, and 27 family dogs was compared in an unfamiliar room. The subjects' behaviour was coded during the first five minutes in the presence of two passive persons, their owners, and an unfamiliar experimenter. Then, based on a set of rules, first the owner, and then the experimenter tried to initiate interactions with the subjects and the subjects' willingness to interact was evaluated. To pass the habituation test, subjects were expected to play with the experimenter or accept food from them. All dogs passed the test on the first occasion, while almost 60% of the cats failed. The cats' experience did not play a significant role, in fact, younger cats passed more easily. We found marked differences between dogs and cats in all behavioural variables; compared to dogs, cats spent more time crouching and close to their box, while less time exploring or close to the owner. We did not find a difference in the cats' behaviour based on their experience. Our results support the hypothesis that unlike dogs, cats need extensive habituation in a novel environment. This could partially be explained by the difference in the ecology and/or domestication process of the species, although developmental effects cannot be excluded. Our findings have fundamental consequences not only for the considerations of the testability of cats and on the interpretation of their data collected in the laboratory, but in a more general sense on developing comparative experiments.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

比较梨和苹果:不像狗,猫在实验室测试前需要习惯。
对不同物种的社会认知技能的研究往往受益于比较实验,然而,物种的生态和个体的发展可能会不同地决定他们对相同测试情况的反应。在这项研究中,我们的目的有两个:观察和比较伴侣猫和狗在相同的新环境中的自发行为,并使它们(如果需要的话)适应在主人和不熟悉的实验者面前的新环境。在一个陌生的房间里比较了62只家庭猫,31只有经验的猫(有机会见到陌生人并探索不熟悉的地方),31只没有经验的猫和27只家庭狗的行为。受试者的行为在前五分钟被记录下来,在场的有两个被动的人,他们的主人和一个不熟悉的实验者。然后,根据一套规则,首先是主人,然后是实验者尝试与受试者进行互动,并评估受试者的互动意愿。为了通过习惯化测试,受试者被要求与实验者一起玩耍或接受他们的食物。所有的狗在第一次测试中都通过了,而几乎60%的猫没有通过。猫的经验并没有发挥重要作用,事实上,年轻的猫更容易通过考试。我们发现狗和猫在所有行为变量上都有显著差异;与狗相比,猫花更多的时间蹲伏在盒子附近,而探索或接近主人的时间更少。根据经验,我们没有发现猫的行为有什么不同。我们的研究结果支持了一个假设,即与狗不同,猫需要在一个新的环境中广泛地适应。虽然不能排除发育方面的影响,但这可以部分地用物种的生态和/或驯化过程的差异来解释。我们的发现不仅对考虑猫的可测试性和在实验室中收集的数据的解释具有根本性的影响,而且在更普遍的意义上对开展比较实验具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信