Cited by 233Human-Animal Interaction StudiesAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies

Human Listeners Are Able to Classify Dog (Canis familiaris) Barks Recorded in Different Situations.

Pongrácz, Péter, Molnár, Csaba, Miklósi, Ádám, Csányi, Vilmos·2005·Journal of Comparative Psychology

Abstract

The authors investigated whether human listeners could categorize played-back dog (Canis familiaris) barks recorded in various situations and associate them with emotional ratings. Prerecorded barks of a Hungarian herding dog breed (Mudi) provided the sample. Human listeners were asked to rate emotionality of the vocalization and to categorize the situations on the basis of alternative situations provided on a questionnaire. The authors found almost no effect of previous experience with the given dog breed or of owning a dog. Listeners were able to categorize bark situations high above chance level. Emotionality ratings for particular bark samples correlated with peak and fundamental frequency and interbark intervals. The authors did not find a significant effect of tonality (harmonic-to-noise ratio) on either the emotionality rating or situation categorization of the human listeners. Humans' ability to recognize meaning suggests that barks could serve as an effective means of communication between dog and human.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.136

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dog vocalization is the primary and primeval means of communication between dogs and humans.

    “Ethologists say that dog vocalization is the primary and primeval means of communication between dogs and humans (Pongrácz et al. 2005).”

    From The Dog-Eared Dictionary: Human-Animal Alliance in Chinese Civilization (2015) · cites this paper as Pongrácz et al. 2005

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 36 · Cited by 233

Authors
Pongrácz, P., Molnár, C., Miklósi, Á., & Csányi, V.
Affiliations
Eötvös Loránd University (HU)
Venue
Journal of Comparative Psychology
Published
2005
Volume
119
Issue
2
Pages
136-144
ISSN
  • 0093-4127 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2087
  • 0735-7036
OpenAlex
W2156248415
Cited by
233
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of comparative psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Human-Animal Interaction Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology › Animal Vocal Communication and Behavior
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Keywords
vocal emotion recognition, human listeners, fundamental frequency, harmonic-to-noise ratio, emotional vocalizations
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Animals, Auditory Perception, Cognition, Communication, Discrimination, Psychological, Dogs, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Sound Spectrography, Tape Recording, Vocalization, Animal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review