↓ Skip to main content

Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
37 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Do domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) perceive the Delboeuf illusion?
Published in
Animal Cognition, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-1066-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Angelo Bisazza, Christian Agrillo

Abstract

In the last decade, visual illusions have been repeatedly used as a tool to compare visual perception among species. Several studies have investigated whether non-human primates perceive visual illusions in a human-like fashion, but little attention has been paid to other mammals, and sensitivity to visual illusions has been never investigated in the dog. Here, we studied whether domestic dogs perceive the Delboeuf illusion. In human and non-human primates, this illusion creates a misperception of item size as a function of its surrounding context. To examine this effect in dogs, we adapted the spontaneous preference paradigm recently used with chimpanzees. Subjects were presented with two plates containing food. In control trials, two different amounts of food were presented in two identical plates. In this circumstance, dogs were expected to select the larger amount. In test trials, equal food portion sizes were presented in two plates differing in size: if dogs perceived the illusion as primates do, they were expected to select the amount of food presented in the smaller plate. Dogs significantly discriminated the two alternatives in control trials, whereas their performance did not differ from chance in test trials with the illusory pattern. The fact that dogs do not seem to be susceptible to the Delboeuf illusion suggests a potential discontinuity in the perceptual biases affecting size judgments between primates and dogs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Hungary 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 42 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 24%
Psychology 10 22%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 11%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 October 2022.
All research outputs
#792,950
of 24,799,506 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#199
of 1,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,052
of 431,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#5
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,799,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,881 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.