Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:30:42.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of visual stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

L Graham ,
DL Wells  and
PG Hepper
L Graham
Affiliation:
Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
DL Wells*
Affiliation:
Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
PG Hepper
Affiliation:
Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study explored the influence of five types of visual stimulation on the behaviour of 50 dogs housed in a rescue shelter. These conditions were: one control condition (no visual stimulation) and four experimental conditions (blank television screen, and moving televised images of conspecifics, interspecifics [ie unfamiliar animal species] and humans). The dogs were exposed to each condition for 4 h per day for five days, with an intervening period of two days between conditions. The dogs' behaviour was recorded on days 1, 3 and 5 during each condition. Dogs spent relatively little of the total observation time looking at the television monitors (10.8%). They spent significantly more of their time looking at the moving images of conspecifics, interspecifics and humans than at the blank screen, although their interest in all experimental conditions declined over time. Dogs spent more time at the front of their enclosures during all of the experimental conditions than during the control condition. Images of conspecifics were more likely to attract the dogs to the front of their kennels than the blank screen. The conspecific and human conditions of visual stimulation attracted slightly more attention from the dogs than the interspecific condition, although not significantly. All of the experimental conditions encouraged significantly less vocalisation and movement than the control condition. Overall, the findings suggest that the behaviour of kennelled dogs is influenced by visual stimulation in the form of television programmes. Such animals, however, may not benefit from this type of enrichment to the same degree as species with more well-developed visual systems. The addition of other types of enrichment strategy for dogs housed in rescue shelters is advocated.

Keywords

animal welfaredogsenrichmentrescue shelterstelevisionvisual stimulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 2: The Three Rs: past, present and future , May 2005 , pp. 143 - 148
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Bloomsmith, MA and Lambeth, SP 2000 Videotapes as enrichment for captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Zoo Biology 19: 541–5513.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomsmith, MA, Keeling, ME and Lambeth, SP 1990 Videotapes: environmental enrichment for singly housed chimpanzees. Lab Animal 19: 42–46Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J 1992 Behavioural biology. In: Thorne, C (ed) The Waltham Book of Dog and Cat Behaviour pp 31–52. Pergamon Press: Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Brent, L and Stone, AM 1996 Long-term use of televisions, balls, and mirrors as enrichment for paired and singly caged chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 39: 139–1453.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brent, L, Lee, DR and Eichberg, JW 1989 Evaluation of two environmental enrichment devices for singly caged chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). American Journal of Primatology, Suppl 1: 65–70Google Scholar
Capitanio, JP, Boccia, ML and Colaiannia, DJ 1985 The influence of rank on affect perception by pigtailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina). American Journal of Primatology 8: 53–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, CH and Jones, RB 2000a Effects of prior video stimulation on open-field behaviour in domestic chicks. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66: 107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, CH and Jones, RB 2000b Responses of adult laying hens to abstract video images presented repeatedly outside the home cage. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67: 97–110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coile, DC, Pollitz, CH and Smith, JC 1989 Behavioral determination of critical flicker fusion in dogs. Physiology & Behavior 45: 1087–1092CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coren, S 1998 What Do Dogs Know? Simon & Shuster: Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
D'Eath, RB 1998 Can video images imitate real stimuli in animal behaviour experiments? Biological Review 73: 267–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, MW 1965 Environmental factors influencing stereotyped and allelomimetic behaviour in animals. Laboratory Animal Care 15: 363–370Google ScholarPubMed
Harris, LD, Briand, EJ, Orth, R and Galbicka, G 1999 Assessing the value of television as environmental enrichment for individually housed rhesus monkeys: a behavioral economic approach. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 38: 48–53Google ScholarPubMed
Hart, WM 1992 The temporal responsiveness of vision. In: Hart, WM (ed) Adler's Physiology of the Eye: Clinical Application pp 548–578. Mosby Year Book Inc: St Louis, USAGoogle Scholar
Howell, DC 1992 Statistical Methods for Psychology, 3rd Edition. Duxbury Press: California, USAGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB, Carmichael, N and Williams, C 1998 Social housing and domestic chicks' responses to symbolic video images. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 231–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, RB, Larkins, C and Hughes, BO 1996 Approach/avoidance responses of domestic chicks to familiar and unfamiliar video images of biologically neutral stimuli. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, ED, Boehm, KM, Hagquist, WM and Bowman, RE 1986 A visual exploration apparatus for infant monkeys. American Journal of Primatology 10: 195–199CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lincoln, H, Andrews, MW and Rosenblum, LA 1994 Environmental structure influences of multiple video-task devices by socially housed pigtail macaques. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1986 Measuring Behaviour. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Miller, PE and Murphy, CJ 1995 Vision in dogs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 207: 1623–1634Google ScholarPubMed
Morris, D 1964 The responses of animals to a restricted environment. Symposium of the Zoological Society of London 13: 99–118Google Scholar
Napier, JR and Napier, PH 1986 The Natural History of the Primates. MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
Newsome, JT and Portnoy, LG 1999 Neuromuscular weakness in a baboon. Laboratory Animal Science 49: 349–357Google Scholar
Platt, DM and Novak, MA 1997 Video stimulation as enrichment for captive rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52: 139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pongracz, P, Miklosi, A, Doka, A and Csanyi, V 2003 Successful application of video-projected human images for signalling to dogs. Ethology 109: 809–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schapiro, SJ and Bloomsmith, MA 1995 Behavioral effects of enrichment on singly-housed, yearling rhesus monkeys: an analysis including three enrichment conditions and a control group. American Journal of Primatology 35: 89–110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swartz, KB and Rosenblum, LA 1980 Operant responding by bonnet macaques for color videotape recordings of social stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior 8: 311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL 1996 The welfare of dogs in an animal rescue shelter. PhD Thesis. Queen's University Belfast, UKGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL 2004a A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 85: 307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL 2004b The influence of toys on the behaviour and welfare of kennelled dogs. Animal Welfare 13: 367–373Google Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1992 The behaviour of dogs in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 1: 171–186Google Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 1998 A note on the influence of visual conspecific contact on the behaviour of sheltered dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 60: 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, DL and Hepper, PG 2000 The influence of environmental change on the behaviour of sheltered dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68: 151–162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, DL, Graham, L and Hepper, PG 2002a The influence of length of time spent in a rescue shelter on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Animal Welfare 11: 317–325Google Scholar
Wells, DL, Graham, L and Hepper, PG 2002b The influence of auditory stimulation on the behaviour of dogs housed in a rescue shelter. Animal Welfare 11: 385–393Google Scholar
Wilcoxon, HC, Meier, GW, Orlando, R and Paulson, DG 1969 Visual self-stimulation in socially-living rhesus monkeys. Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Primatology 1: 261–266Google Scholar
Zeil, J 2000 Depth cues, behavioural context and natural illumination: some potential limitations of video playback techniques. Acta Ethologica 3: 39–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar