↓ Skip to main content

How two word-trained dogs integrate pointing and naming

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
How two word-trained dogs integrate pointing and naming
Published in
Animal Cognition, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10071-012-0494-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Grassmann, Juliane Kaminski, Michael Tomasello

Abstract

Two word-trained dogs were presented with acts of reference in which a human pointed, named objects, or simultaneously did both. The question was whether these dogs would assume co-reference of pointing and naming and thus pick the pointed-to object. Results show that the dogs did indeed assume co-reference of pointing and naming in order to determine the reference of a spoken word, but they did so only when pointing was not in conflict with their previous word knowledge. When pointing and a spoken word conflicted, the dogs preferentially fetched the object by name. This is not surprising since they are trained to fetch objects by name. However, interestingly, in these conflict conditions, the dogs fetched the named objects only after they had initially approached the pointed-to object. We suggest that this shows that the word-trained dogs interpret pointing as a spatial directive, which they integrate into the fetching game, presumably assuming that pointing is relevant to finding the requested object.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Austria 2 2%
Hungary 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Finland 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Unknown 71 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Other 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 36%
Psychology 22 26%
Computer Science 3 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 25 March 2023.
All research outputs
#6,563,766
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#856
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,875
of 175,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 175,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.