Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Authors = Francys Subiaul

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
11 pages, 728 KiB  
Brief Report
Raising an Eye at Facial Muscle Morphology in Canids
by Courtney L. Sexton, Rui Diogo, Francys Subiaul and Brenda J. Bradley
Biology 2024, 13(5), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology13050290 - 25 Apr 2024
Viewed by 3372
Abstract
The evolution of facial muscles in dogs has been linked to human preferential selection of dogs whose faces appear to communicate information and emotion. Dogs who convey, especially with their eyes, a sense of perceived helplessness can elicit a caregiving response from humans. [...] Read more.
The evolution of facial muscles in dogs has been linked to human preferential selection of dogs whose faces appear to communicate information and emotion. Dogs who convey, especially with their eyes, a sense of perceived helplessness can elicit a caregiving response from humans. However, the facial muscles used to generate such expressions may not be uniquely present in all dogs, but rather specifically cultivated among various taxa and individuals. In a preliminary, qualitative gross anatomical evaluation of 10 canid specimens of various species, we find that the presence of two facial muscles previously implicated in human-directed canine communication, the levator anguli occuli medialis (LAOM) and the retractor anguli occuli lateralis (RAOL), was not unique to domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris). Our results suggest that these aspects of facial musculature do not necessarily reflect selection via human domestication and breeding. In addition to quantitatively evaluating more and other members of the Canidae family, future directions should include analyses of the impact of superficial facial features on canine communication and interspecies communication between dogs and humans. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biology, Ecology, Management and Conservation of Canidae)
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 3197 KiB  
Article
What Is Written on a Dog’s Face? Evaluating the Impact of Facial Phenotypes on Communication between Humans and Canines
by Courtney L. Sexton, Colleen Buckley, Jake Lieberfarb, Francys Subiaul, Erin E. Hecht and Brenda J. Bradley
Animals 2023, 13(14), 2385; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13142385 - 22 Jul 2023
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 12472
Abstract
Facial phenotypes are significant in communication with conspecifics among social primates. Less is understood about the impact of such markers in heterospecific encounters. Through behavioral and physical phenotype analyses of domesticated dogs living in human households, this study aims to evaluate the potential [...] Read more.
Facial phenotypes are significant in communication with conspecifics among social primates. Less is understood about the impact of such markers in heterospecific encounters. Through behavioral and physical phenotype analyses of domesticated dogs living in human households, this study aims to evaluate the potential impact of superficial facial markings on dogs’ production of human-directed facial expressions. That is, this study explores how facial markings, such as eyebrows, patches, and widow’s peaks, are related to expressivity toward humans. We used the Dog Facial Action Coding System (DogFACS) as an objective measure of expressivity, and we developed an original schematic for a standardized coding of facial patterns and coloration on a sample of more than 100 male and female dogs (N = 103), aged from 6 months to 12 years, representing eight breed groups. The present study found a statistically significant, though weak, correlation between expression rate and facial complexity, with dogs with plainer faces tending to be more expressive (r = −0.326, p ≤ 0.001). Interestingly, for adult dogs, human companions characterized dogs’ rates of facial expressivity with more accuracy for dogs with plainer faces. Especially relevant to interspecies communication and cooperation, within-subject analyses revealed that dogs’ muscle movements were distributed more evenly across their facial regions in a highly social test condition compared to conditions in which they received ambiguous cues from their owners. On the whole, this study provides an original evaluation of how facial features may impact communication in human–dog interactions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dog–Human Relationships: Behavior, Physiology, and Wellbeing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

26 pages, 305 KiB  
Review
What’s Special about Human Imitation? A Comparison with Enculturated Apes
by Francys Subiaul
Behav. Sci. 2016, 6(3), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs6030013 - 7 Jul 2016
Cited by 28 | Viewed by 8335
Abstract
What, if anything, is special about human imitation? An evaluation of enculturated apes’ imitation skills, a “best case scenario” of non-human apes’ imitation performance, reveals important similarities and differences between this special population of apes and human children. Candidates for shared imitation mechanisms [...] Read more.
What, if anything, is special about human imitation? An evaluation of enculturated apes’ imitation skills, a “best case scenario” of non-human apes’ imitation performance, reveals important similarities and differences between this special population of apes and human children. Candidates for shared imitation mechanisms include the ability to imitate various familiar transitive responses and object–object actions that involve familiar tools. Candidates for uniquely derived imitation mechanisms include: imitating novel transitive actions and novel tool-using responses as well as imitating opaque or intransitive gestures, regardless of familiarity. While the evidence demonstrates that enculturated apes outperform non-enculturated apes and perform more like human children, all apes, regardless of rearing history, generally excel at imitating familiar, over-rehearsed responses and are poor, relative to human children, at imitating novel, opaque or intransitive responses. Given the similarities between the sensory and motor systems of preschool age human children and non-human apes, it is unlikely that differences in sensory input and/or motor-output alone explain the observed discontinuities in imitation performance. The special rearing history of enculturated apes—including imitation-specific training—further diminishes arguments suggesting that differences are experience-dependent. Here, it is argued that such differences are best explained by distinct, specialized mechanisms that have evolved for copying rules and responses in particular content domains. Uniquely derived social and imitation learning mechanisms may represent adaptations for learning novel communicative gestures and complex tool-use. Given our species’ dependence on both language and tools, mechanisms that accelerated learning in these domains are likely to have faced intense selective pressures, starting with the earliest of human ancestors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Animal Cognition)
Back to TopTop