» Articles » PMID: 20667875

Automatic Imitation in Dogs

Overview
Journal Proc Biol Sci
Specialty Biology
Date 2010 Jul 30
PMID 20667875
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

After preliminary training to open a sliding door using their head and their paw, dogs were given a discrimination task in which they were rewarded with food for opening the door using the same method (head or paw) as demonstrated by their owner (compatible group), or for opening the door using the alternative method (incompatible group). The incompatible group, which had to counterimitate to receive food reward, required more trials to reach a fixed criterion of discrimination performance (85% correct) than the compatible group. This suggests that, like humans, dogs are subject to 'automatic imitation'; they cannot inhibit online the tendency to imitate head use and/or paw use. In a subsequent transfer test, where all dogs were required to imitate their owners' head and paw use for food reward, the incompatible group made a greater proportion of incorrect, counterimitative responses than the compatible group. These results are consistent with the associative sequence learning model, which suggests that the development of imitation depends on sensorimotor experience and phylogenetically general mechanisms of associative learning. More specifically, they suggest that the imitative behaviour of dogs is shaped more by their developmental interactions with humans than by their evolutionary history of domestication.

Citing Articles

Automatic imitation of intransitive actions in macaws.

Haldar E, Subramanya P, von Bayern A iScience. 2025; 27(12):111514.

PMID: 39759005 PMC: 11699809. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111514.


Dogs with prior experience of a task still overimitate their caregiver.

Mackie L, Huber L Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):20806.

PMID: 39242613 PMC: 11379846. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-70700-3.


Free-ranging dogs match a human's preference in a foraging task.

Cimarelli G, Juskaite M, Range F, Marshall-Pescini S Curr Zool. 2024; 70(3):343-349.

PMID: 39035764 PMC: 11255983. DOI: 10.1093/cz/zoad046.


Age-related differences in interference control in the context of a finger-lifting task: an fMRI study.

Riva F, Pronizius E, Lenger M, Kronbichler M, Silani G, Lamm C Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2023; 18(1).

PMID: 37279968 PMC: 10329405. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsad034.


Spontaneous action matching in dog puppies, kittens and wolf pups.

Fugazza C, Temesi A, Coronas R, Uccheddu S, Gacsi M, Pogany A Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):2094.

PMID: 36797322 PMC: 9935877. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-28959-5.


References
1.
Ray E, Heyes C . Imitation in infancy: the wealth of the stimulus. Dev Sci. 2010; 14(1):92-105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00961.x. View

2.
Miklosi A, Soproni K . A comparative analysis of animals' understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim Cogn. 2005; 9(2):81-93. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1. View

3.
Heyes C, Bird G, Johnson H, Haggard P . Experience modulates automatic imitation. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2005; 22(2):233-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.009. View

4.
Gangitano M, Mottaghy F, Pascual-Leone A . Modulation of premotor mirror neuron activity during observation of unpredictable grasping movements. Eur J Neurosci. 2004; 20(8):2193-202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03655.x. View

5.
Brauer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M . Making inferences about the location of hidden food: social dog, causal ape. J Comp Psychol. 2006; 120(1):38-47. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.38. View