Elsevier

Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Volume 7, Issue 2, March–April 2012, Pages 70-79
Journal of Veterinary Behavior

Research
Lateralization in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): Relationships between structural, motor, and sensory laterality

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.07.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Several studies have assessed different components of lateralization. To date, the relationships between the 3 measures of laterality, structural, motor, and sensory, have not widely been assessed. Specifically, the relationships between structural (hair whorl characteristics) and motor or sensory lateralization have largely been overlooked. This study investigated the associations between these measures of lateralization in dogs (n = 114), using hair whorl characteristics (structural), the Kong and First-stepping Tests (motor), and the Sensory Jump Test (sensory). Several associations emerged, revealing the first evidence of a relationship between structural asymmetry (both the presence and direction of a hair whorl in various regions of the body) and sensory lateralization. Specifically, the presence of a whorl on the dog’s left side of the head (cephalic) and thorax was associated with a right visual bias. In addition, right visual bias was probable if the ventral mandibular whorl was present in a counter-clockwise direction (P = 0.008). Our data also demonstrated an association between structural and motor laterality (paw preference). Most notably, dogs with clockwise chest whorls were significantly more right-preferent in the First-stepping Test than those with counter-clockwise whorls (P = 0.010). In addition, an association between measures of motor and sensory lateralization also emerged, representing some of the first evidence of such a relationship in nonhuman animals.

Introduction

Hemispheric lateralization refers to the specialized functions of the left and right sides of the brain, which result in observable differences in the use of the left and right sides of the body for both motor and sensory tasks (Vallortigara et al., 1998). Lateralization is no longer thought to be unique to humans, but instead is considered a characteristic of most vertebrates (Rogers and Andrew, 2002), with the right hemisphere primarily controlling rapid responses, while the left controls considered responses (Rogers, 2002). Possessing a lateralized brain offers several advantages at both the individual and population level, and in particular, in nondomesticated animals. At the individual level, enhanced performance and faster responses are seen in lateralized compared with nonlateralized subjects, regardless of the direction of laterality (Rogers, 2002). At the population level, the extent to which a group is lateralized in the same direction can assist with survival because of both intraspecific social behavior and avoidance of predation (Rogers, 2000).

The extent to which lateralization influences the lives of companion animals is continuing to be explored. Dogs play an important role in society, both as companions and as workers. By convention, service dogs such as guide dogs are left-heel trained, and as such are required to work on the left side of their handler. This convention may prove to be a disadvantage to dogs that are less flexible when turning right, and may result in their being disqualified erroneously from training. Potentially, less flexible right-turning dogs may turn out to be just as suitable for guiding work if trained on the right side of their handler.

Visual biases may also influence suitability of dogs for work if they are particularly reliant on their right field of vision and corresponding brain hemisphere, which is often obscured by the handler when undertaking left-heel work. This bias has been reported in guide dogs where left visually preferent dogs were more successful in the Guide Dog Training Program than right visually preferent animals (Tomkins et al., 2011).

In comparison with motor and sensory lateralization, structural lateralization has received very little scientific attention. Structural asymmetries are evident in the positioning of some internal organs, such as the heart. Hair whorls, anatomical features of the hair coat that can show left-right asymmetry, are also of interest as a structural marker of lateralization (Jansen et al., 2007, Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010a, Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010b) since the nervous system and the integument have common origins in the structure of the embryo (Smith and Gong, 1973). Given that whorls are not influenced by maturation or human intervention, they could potentially provide an external indicator of functional brain lateralization. In addition, some whorl characteristics (presence and direction) are binary outcomes, unlike motor and sensory measures that can result in animals being classified as right preferent, left preferent, or ambidextrous; thus, hair whorls may offer a more compelling tool for determining lateralization in animals.

Given that significant resources are involved in training service dogs such as police and guide dogs, determining early predictors of success is attractive to industry stakeholders. Measures of laterality, such as hair whorls, may reliably indicate suitability among dogs intended for work. An association between hair whorl characteristics and behavioral tendencies in the dog has been reported (Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010a, Tomkins et al., 2011), which has largely been focused on the chest whorl. In our preliminary study assessing hair whorl characteristics in dogs (n = 120) of various breeds and cross-breeds, the source of the dog (shelter or nonshelter) was marginally associated with the position of the chest whorl (Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010a). Dogs sourced from a shelter had a tendency for their chest whorls to be positioned further away from the thoracic inlet than nonshelter dogs. Given behavioral reasons are known to be the leading cause of relinquishment of dogs to shelters (Salman et al., 2000), it seems plausible that an association between chest whorl position and behavior exists. Furthermore, hair whorls were assessed in potential guide dogs (n = 114), and the direction of a chest whorl was found to be significantly associated with the success of a dog in the Guide Dog Training Program, where dogs with a counter-clockwise (CC) chest whorl had a higher probability of success than dogs with a clockwise (C) whorl (Tomkins et al., 2011).

Very few animal studies have compared hair whorls with other laterality measures such as motor lateralization. Murphy and Arkins, 2004, Murphy and Arkins, 2005, Murphy and Arkins, 2008 investigated the relationship between cephalic hair whorls and motor laterality in the horse. The authors reported that foals with C whorls presented their right foreleg initially at birth (Murphy and Arkins, 2005); and, that, left-lateralized horses exhibited significantly more CC whorls, whereas right-lateralized horses had more C whorls than expected by chance (Murphy and Arkins, 2004, Murphy and Arkins, 2008). Although a significant relationship was reported by Murphy and Arkins, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have made a comparison between noncephalic hair whorls and measures of laterality. Furthermore, only limited literature is available on canine hair whorl characteristics (Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010a, Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010b, Tomkins et al., 2011).

Studies have demonstrated that hair whorl characteristics are associated with behavioral tendencies (cattle: Grandin et al., 1995, Randle, 1998, Lanier et al., 2001; horses: Górecka et al., 2006; dogs: Tomkins and McGreevy, 2010a, Tomkins et al., 2011). A review of the literature revealed that there is a dearth of comparable data on different measures of lateralization, especially those reflecting structural lateralization. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare this measure of structural lateralization with both motor and sensory laterality measures. In addition, the relationship between motor and sensory lateralization was assessed. For our study these comparisons were made in dogs, a species in which hair whorls (at 11 different regions) have been reported as a structural marker of lateralization, motor lateralization can be determined using 2 different tests (Kong and First-stepping Tests), and sensory lateralization in the form of visual bias can be determined using the Sensory Jump Test (5 measures used). The presence and direction of hair whorls were assessed for structural lateralization, while direction and strength of lateralization were measured for both motor and sensory lateralization. Direction of lateralization indicates the direction of bias (either left or right preference), whereas strength of lateralization captures asymmetry in the activity of the 2 appendages (paws for motor laterality) or organs (eyes for sensory laterality), without taking into account the direction of the preference.

Section snippets

Animals

Dogs participating in the laterality study were aged between 13 and 17 months, and sourced from Guide Dogs NSW/ACT. The cohort of trainee guide dogs (n = 114) were all neutered (males, n = 53; females, n = 61), and included Labrador retrievers (n = 97), golden retrievers (n = 9), and Labrador–golden retriever crosses (n = 8). Although the full cohort (n = 114) of dogs participated in the Kong Test (motor lateralization) and hair whorl assessments, only a portion of these dogs were assessed in

Hair whorl characteristics

The presence, direction, and classification of whorls that are located bilaterally or centrally can be seen in Table 1, Table 2, respectively. Briefly, in more than 10% of the dogs, whorls were present in the ventral mandibular, chest, brachial and thoracic axillary, elbow, and ischiatic regions. Whorls were uniformly classified as simple, with the exception of those on the elbows and chest, which were consistently tufted. Because of the lack of variation in simple and tufted whorl

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to report on the relationship between the 3 measures of laterality, that is, structural, motor, and sensory. Several associations were identified between structural and motor, structural and sensory, and motor and sensory lateralization.

The findings of our study support the association between structural and motor laterality measures in the horse reported by Murphy and Arkins, 2004, Murphy and Arkins, 2008. Similar to the studies performed by Murphy and

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to assess all 3 measures of laterality (structural, motor, and sensory lateralization), and furthermore, the first to assess the relationship between these measures. The presence and direction of whorls in several regions were associated with motor and sensory measures. Given measures of laterality have been associated with identifying dogs suitable for working environments, morphological indictors of laterality such as hair whorls may provide

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Guide Dogs NSW/ACT for providing the facility and dogs to conduct this study. The Australian Research Council and Guide Dogs NSW/ACT provided funding for this project. The authors also thank the 2 anonymous referees whose comments on this article were greatly valued.

References (38)

  • L.M. Tomkins et al.

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

    J. Vet. Behav.: Clin. Appl. Res.

    (2010)
  • L.M. Tomkins et al.

    Sensory Jump Test as a measure of sensory (visual) lateralisation in dogs (Canis familiaris)

    J. Vet. Behav.: Clin. Appl. Res.

    (2010)
  • J. Vauclair et al.

    Hand preferences for unimanual and coordinated bimanual tasks in baboons (Papio anubis)

    Cogn. Brain Res.

    (2005)
  • D.L. Wells

    Lateralised behaviour in the domestic dog, Canis familiaris

    Behav. Processes

    (2003)
  • L.S. Batt et al.

    Stability of motor lateralisation in maturing dogs

    Laterality

    (2008)
  • A.S. Chapelain et al.

    Lateralization for visual processes: eye preference in Campbell’s monkeys (Cercopithecus c. campbelli)

    Anim. Cogn.

    (2009)
  • J. Cole

    Laterality in the use of the hand, foot, and eye in monkeys

    J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol.

    (1957)
  • M. de Latude et al.

    Visual laterality responses to different emotive stimuli by red-capped mangabeys, Cercocebus torquatus torquatus

    Anim. Cogn.

    (2009)
  • J. Fagot et al.

    Manual laterality in nonhuman primates: a distinction between handedness and manual specialization

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1991)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Behavior genetics of the horse (Equus caballus)

      2022, Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, Third Edition
    • Critical review of dog detection and the influences of physiology, training, and analytical methodologies

      2018, Talanta
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, beyond the personalities of the trainers themselves, most training organisations can see merit in efficiencies that align with dog welfare. For example, a series of studies in guide dogs has revealed the pre-testing of puppies with a battery of reactivity, sensory laterality, motor laterality and morphological laterality can increase pass rates from 49% to 83% [128–134]. When such tests are used to predict the suitability of dogs for guiding work, and by identifying predictors of success, resources can be more efficiently utilised on dogs with greater potential and dogs that are not suitable can be spared the rigours of training.

    • Body size influences urinary posture but not hindlimb laterality in shelter dogs

      2017, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      A dog was considered left preferent if Z ≤−1.96 and right preferent if Z ≥1.96 (Branson, 2006). We also calculated a laterality index for each dog using the following equation from Tomkins et al. (2012), which we modified for hindlimb raises: ([Number of right hindlimb raises − number of left hindlimb raises]/[number of right hindlimb raises + number of left hindlimb raises]) × 100. Negative values for the laterality index indicate a left-side preference, and positive values indicate a right-side preference.

    • Assessing lateralization in domestic dogs: Performance by Canis familiaris on the Kong test

      2016, Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      During testing, if the dog held a paw on the Kong for longer than 10 seconds, it was distracted (i.e., by the researcher calling its name, or by the provision of an alternative small food treat). Once the dog's paw was removed from the Kong, the task and recording began again until 50 observations were recorded per dog (Batt et al., 2009; Schneider et al., 2013; Siniscalchi et al., 2008; Tomkins et al., 2011; Tomkins et al., 2012). Owners were asked to refrain from feeding their dog before the testing session to increase the chances of the dog being hungry.

    • Behavioral Laterality and Facial Hair Whorls in Horses

      2016, Journal of Equine Veterinary Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Horses' manageability during handling was associated with the position of hair whorls on the face, where horses with high facial hair whorls were more difficult to handle than horses with medium or low whorls [10]. In dogs, relationships between hair whorls, motor, and sensory laterality have been shown [11]. By establishing a link between hair whorls and lateralized behavior, one factor can be used as an indicator of the other.

    • Urinary posture and motor laterality in dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) at two shelters

      2015, Applied Animal Behaviour Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      This is known as the manipulation complexity hypothesis. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) have become increasingly popular subjects in studies of laterality due to their availability and ease of observation, and because measures of laterality may indicate suitability for complex tasks such as seeing-eye work and police dog training (Tompkins et al., 2012a,b). Canine laterality has been assessed for several different motor tasks, including tail wagging (Quaranta et al., 2007), head turning (Siniscalchi et al., 2008), and front foot first used when walking (Tompkins et al., 2010a).

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    None of the authors of this article have a financial or personal relationship with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence or bias the content of the article.

    View full text