Search

One way to uncover visual capabilities in animals is to assess perception of geometric illusions. Recently, we found that dogs did not demonstrate susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion when it was presented in a variety of contexts, a unique result as all other published reports of nonhuman animal species tested on the illusion have demonstrated human-like susceptibility. Two important variables were not considered in our previous study. First, the stimuli were presented horizontally, whereas the more traditional presentation is vertical. Second, it is not known whether dogs can differentiate physical size differences small enough to facilitate perception of the Ponzo illusion. To investigate these issues, we tested the same dogs from our previous study on a vertical version of the Ponzo illusion and on a size discrimination task. Dogs did not demonstrate illusion susceptibility at the group level, although one dog was susceptible. In general, they were better able to detect size differences when the absolute size of the stimuli was large. Nonetheless, with stimuli approximately the same size as those used to test susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion, all eight dogs were able to discriminate between circles that differed in length by 20%, with four discriminating 10% size differences and none able to discriminate 5% differences. These findings suggest that at least some dogs are capable of perceiving the average size difference that humans perceive when observing the Ponzo illusion, but that susceptibility to this illusion is variable and weak, regardless of whether it is presented in either a vertical or horizontal format.

While domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) play a large role in human daily lives, little is known about how they perceive the visual world. Recent research suggests that dogs may perceive certain visual illusions differently than humans. To further evaluate geometric illusion susceptibility, eight dogs were assessed on their susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion. Four experiments were conducted: 1) a presentation of the Ponzo illusion with target circles in a ‘grid inducer context’, 2) a re-test of Experiment 1 after additional training, 3) a presentation of the Ponzo illusion with target rectangles in a ‘grid inducer context’ and 4) a presentation of the Ponzo illusion with target circles in a ‘converging lines context.’ A one-sample t-test of the dogs’ responses to the Ponzo stimuli in Experiment 1 demonstrated illusion susceptibility at the group level; however, no individual dog performed significantly above chance in binomial tests. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, one-sample t-tests found no significant results at the group level, although one or more dogs did demonstrate a small but significant effect. Taken together, then, there was limited evidence for dogs’ susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion in a two-choice discrimination paradigm. As most animals tested previously have demonstrated human-like susceptibility to the Ponzo illusion, these findings have implications for theoretical explanations. The divergence of results between dogs and humans/other animals suggest that mechanisms underlying perception of the Ponzo illusion may differ across species and that care should be taken when using visual paradigms to test dogs’ cognitive skills.