Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 5, Issue 5, September–October 2010, Pages 247-255
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Original research
First-stepping Test as a measure of motor laterality in dogs (Canis familiaris)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2010.03.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Motor laterality in potential guide dogs (n = 113) was determined using two methods: the Kong™ Test (the current benchmark test) and our innovation, a First-stepping Test. Kong™ studies record paw use during foraging from a rubber cylinder. However, motivation to feed varies markedly among dogs and breeds, and the test comprises 50 observations which for a single dog can take up to 4 hours to collect. The First-stepping Test bypasses hunger, and simply records the first foot advanced after standing with both forelegs level. In contrast to the Kong™ Test, it allows 50 observations to be gathered in 20 minutes. The findings of the current study indicate that lateralized behavior in the domestic dog is strongly task-dependent. The First-stepping Test revealed more significant paw preferences (PPs) than the Kong™ Test (76.1% vs. 52.2%). A significant right population bias (P = 0.036) was revealed using this novel test, whereas there was no bias in the direction of laterality observed using the Kong™ Test (P = 0.30). Instead, there was a significant population bias for the category of ambidextrous PP using the Kong™ (P = 0.005). Strength of laterality (regardless of direction) was significantly high in the First-stepping Test (P < 0.001), but only weak PPs were observed for the Kong™ Test (P = 0.65). Measures of laterality from the First-stepping Test were not influenced by dog factors, whereas age, breed, and sex of the dog were significantly associated with several laterality measures during the Kong™ Test. The occurrence of using both paws simultaneously to either hold the Kong™, or to step-off by means of jumping, was associated with a decrease in lateral strength for both tests. The First-stepping Test was repeatable, and the intraobserver (κ = 0.988) and interobserver (κ = 0.975) reliabilities were high. It offers a simple, quick and, when compared with the Kong™ Test, a more discriminative method of determining PP that is less influenced by dog factors.

Introduction

Lateralization refers to the specialized functions of the right and left cerebral hemispheres and may control both motor responses and preferential processing of stimuli. It may also be used to predict more general behavioral attributes. For example, in dogs, associations between motor laterality and noise sensitivity have been reported (Branson and Rogers, 2006). Specifically, lack of paw preference (PP) in a food-retrieval task is associated with noise-related fearfulness. Fearfulness, including noise sensitivity, is one of the reasons for failure of guide dogs during training. So, knowing a given animal's laterality may be predictive of its fearfulness. Furthermore, this information may also explain the performance of a dog in guiding tasks because convention dictates that dogs work to the left of their handlers. This convention may disadvantage some dogs that might be perfectly useful if worked on the right of their handlers. Motor laterality can be task-dependent (Fagot and Vauclair, 1991, Spinozzi and Truppa, 1999, Wells, 2003, Trouillard and Blois-Heulin, 2005, Batt et al., 2008a). Various methodologies for determining motor lateralization in dogs have been reported, including reaching for food (Aydinlioğlu et al., 2000), circling direction (Branson, 2006), paw on bone/Kong™ (Branson and Rogers, 2006, Batt et al., 2007), removal of tape from eyes (Tan, 1987, Tan and Caliskan, 1987) or nose (Quaranta et al., 2004, Quaranta et al., 2006, Poyser et al., 2006, Batt et al., 2007), blanket removal, and paw-shaking (Wells, 2003). Although a variety of tests have been devised to determine PP, the way in which they chiefly reflect individual dogs' physical ability may limit their ability to reveal true brain asymmetry. In addition, some tests may be questionable on welfare grounds (e.g., the removal of adhesive tape from eyes or nose). The Kong™ (a rubber cylindrical dog toy) Test, based on foraging behavior, is the current benchmark test for determining PP in dogs (Branson, 2006, Branson and Rogers, 2006, Batt et al., 2007, Batt et al., 2008a, Batt et al., 2008b, Batt et al., 2009). However, motivation to feed varies markedly among dogs and breeds (Rooney and Bradshaw, 2004), and the test comprises 50 observations which for a single dog can take up to 4 hours to collect. Consequently, there remains a need to develop a method of determining PP without reliance on motivation to feed.

This study examined, as a potential indicator of motor bias, the first foot placed forward (first-stepping) when moving forward from a standing position. van Alphen et al. (2005) previously described a stepping-off technique, but their dogs (n = 36) commenced from a stand or sit position, and stepped off with their owners who may have biased the leg used by the dog to initiate walking. Dogs in the current study stepped-off from only a stand position, and neither the dog handler (assistant) nor researcher stepped-off with the dog when the dog was cued to step-off. This removed any potential biases caused by these operator actions. In addition, PP in the Kong™ Test was determined in the same cohort of dogs. This permitted comparisons with previous studies, as well as a comparison between the results of the two laterality tests in this study to determine whether PP alters with task. The aims of the current study were to (i) develop a methodology to assess motor laterality in dogs without the reliance on food (First-stepping Test); (ii) use this methodology to determine both strength and direction of lateralization in a cohort of potential guide dogs, and (iii) compare motor laterality findings from the First-stepping and Kong™ Tests.

Section snippets

Animals

Motor laterality was determined in potential guide dogs (n = 113) using two tasks based on food-retrieval (the Kong™ Test) and simple locomotion (the First-stepping Test). Dogs were aged between 13 and 17 months and neutered (males, n = 52; females, n = 61). They included Labrador retrievers (LR; n = 96), golden retrievers (GR; n = 9), and Labrador-golden retriever crosses (LR × GR; n = 8). Dogs were assessed for PP in both tasks at the NSW/ACT Guide Dog Training Centre, Glossodia, NSW,

Results

First-stepping Test exposed more significant PPs than the Kong™ Test (First-stepping, 76.1%; Kong™, 52.2%). A significant right population bias (P = 0.036) was observed in the First-stepping Test, whereas the Kong™ Test did not reveal a bias in the direction of laterality (DL; P = 0.30). However, when assessing the categories of PP, a clear ambidextrous bias emerged from the Kong™ data (P = 0.005) and the right-preferent bias was confirmed from the First-stepping data (P = 0.012; Figure 4). The

Discussion

Our findings indicate that lateralized behavior in the domestic dog is strongly task-dependent. There was no association between the First-stepping and Kong™ Tests for direction and strength of lateralization, or for PP category. The First-stepping Test exposed significant PPs in more dogs than the Kong™ Test (76.1% vs. 52.2%). A significant right population bias was identified in the cohort of potential guide dogs using the First-stepping Test, whereas no significant left or right population

Conclusion

This study introduces the First-stepping Test as a repeatable and consistent indicator of motor bias in the dog and has revealed a significant right population bias in a cohort of potential guide dogs undertaking this task. A comparison between measures of laterality using the Kong™ and First-stepping Tests has confirmed that lateralized behavior in the domestic dog is strongly task-dependent. The First-stepping Test was quicker, revealed stronger PPs, and exposed a significant left or right PP

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kent Williams for assisting in the First-stepping data collection and Kate Marshall for her assistance with the interobserver ratings. The Australian Research Council and NSW/ACT Guide Dogs provided funding for this project. None of the financial contributors had any involvement in the preparation of this article. Guide Dogs NSW/ACT provided access to 113 of their trainee guide dogs for the study, but the experimental design was the product of the author's (L.T.) work.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (47)

  • Factors influencing the expression of behavior in the domestic dog

    2022, Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, Third Edition
  • Lateralized emotional functioning in domestic animals

    2021, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
  • Affective styles and emotional lateralization: A promising framework for animal welfare research

    2021, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
    Citation Excerpt :

    Regarding the multidimensionality of laterality, it seems unlikely that individual hemispheric dominance can be determined based on only one measure of behavioural lateralization, especially because lateralization patterns can change based on the task (Fagot and Vauclair, 1991). Indeed, individual biases involved in different motor functions are often not associated (Batt et al., 2008; Tomkins et al., 2010; Wells et al., 2019). In this case, it may be meaningful to combine them (e.g., by using a cluster analysis) to identify individuals with consistent motor biases across motor functions (Goursot et al., 2018).

  • Paw preference as a tool for assessing emotional functioning and welfare in dogs and cats: A review

    2021, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
    Citation Excerpt :

    Relatively little attention has been devoted to the role of breed differences in the expression of limb preference. In dogs, breed differences (using whippets, greyhounds, boxers and pugs) have not been found to be related to motor bias, either using the Kong ball test (McGreevy et al., 2010) or the first stepping task (Tomkins et al., 2010a). That said, shorter muzzle breeds have been reported to be quicker to reach the criterion of 100 paw responses on the Kong ball task than longer nosed breeds, which rely more heavily on their muzzle alone to retrieve the food (McGreevy et al., 2010).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text