Anim Cogn
DOI 10.1007/s10071-012-0538-2
ORIGINAL PAPER
Habituation and dishabituation during object play
in kennel-housed dogs
Anne J. Pullen • Ralph J. N. Merrill •
John W. S. Bradshaw
Received: 19 September 2011 / Revised: 18 June 2012 / Accepted: 10 July 2012
Ó Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract Domestic dogs are reported to show intense
but transient neophilia towards novel objects. Here, we
examine habituation and dishabituation to manipulable
objects by kennel-housed dogs. Labrador retrievers (N =
16) were repeatedly presented with one toy for successive
30-s periods until interaction ceased. At this point (habitu-
ation), a different toy was presented that contrasted with the
first in both colour and odour (since the dog’s saliva would
have accumulated on the first), colour alone, or odour alone.
No effect of the type of contrast was detected in the number
of presentations to habituation, the difference in duration of
interaction between the first presentation of the first toy and
the presentation of the second toy (recovery), or the dura-
tion of interaction with the second toy (dishabituation).
Varying the time interval between successive presentations
of the first toy up to habituation between 10 s and 10 min
had no effect on the number of presentations to habituation,
nor did it alter the extent of dishabituation. Varying the
delay from habituation to presentation of the second toy,
between 10 s and 15 min, affected neither the recovery nor
the dishabituation. Overall, the study indicates that loss of
interest in the object during object-orientated play in this
species is due to habituation to the overall stimulus prop-
erties of the toy rather than to any single sensory modality
and is also atypical in its insensitivity to the interval
between presentations.
A. J. Pullen
J. W. S. Bradshaw (&)
Anthrozoology Institute, School of Clinical Veterinary Sciences,
University of Bristol, Langford BS40 5DU, UK
e-mail: J.W.S.Bradshaw@bristol.ac.uk
R. J. N. Merrill
WALTHAMÒ Centre for Pet Nutrition, Waltham-on-the-Wolds,
Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire LE14 4RT, UK
Keywords Domestic dog
Habituation
Dishabituation

Object play
Introduction
The domestic dog is renowned for routinely engaging in
play even when adult, and object-orientated social play is
commonly used by owners to interact with dogs and enrich
their environment (Rooney et al. 2000). Provision of
manipulable objects can be beneficial for the welfare of
individually housed dogs when preferred play objects
(henceforth ‘toys’) are offered (Wells 2004b), but the
extent to which dogs interact with such toys appears to vary
considerably. In laboratory kennels, beagles have been
observed to display more long-lasting interest in toys,
interacting with them for about a quarter of the observed
time (Hubrecht 1993), than did dogs in rehoming kennels,
which interacted for less than a tenth of the observed time
(Wells 2004a). Dogs display powerful neophilia towards
novel toys (Kaulfuß and Mills 2008), and anecdotally, they
can also rapidly lose interest in particular toys. The
behavioural mechanisms that may lead to the latter, which
are likely to include habituation, do not appear to have
been investigated systematically.
Habituation, ‘the response decrement as a result of
repeated stimulation’ (Harris 1943), is likely to impact on
the effectiveness of any inanimate enrichment (Tarou and
Bashaw 2007). For example, successive presentations of
enrichment objects to chimpanzees rapidly led to habitua-
tion towards those objects over a 3-day period (Celli et al.
2003). Habituation has even been observed when manipu-
lable and play-inducing objects were offered, affecting their
usefulness as long-term enrichments (Line et al. 1991; Maki
and Bloomsmith 1989 cited in Tarou and Bashaw 2007).
123

Dishabituation is defined as any resumption of the behav-
ioural response, which may be less than or equal to that seen
prior to habituation (Holmes 1912 cited in Thompson
2009), that occurs when the sensory characteristics of an
object presented to the animal contrast sufficiently with
those of the object to which habituation has built up. Such
dishabituation could potentially be used to restore interest in
object play and is therefore one of the key factors that could
affect the value of enrichment using objects.
Object-orientated play in domestic cats is motivated as
if it were a type of predatory behaviour (Hall and Bradshaw
1998), with habituation rapidly inhibiting exploration of
the object unless its sensory characteristics change, as
would happen during successful predatory behaviour. In
this species, the dishabituation when the sensory charac-
teristics of the toy are changed can exceed that seen with
the first presentation of the first toy (Hall et al. 2002),
termed post-inhibitory rebound (Kennedy 1985; Roper
1984). Since the domestic dog also evolved from a pred-
atory species (Coppinger and Schneider 1995), it is possi-
ble this species has a similar underlying motivation for
object-orientated play to that observed in cats (Hall et al.
2002). Social play in dogs is considered to be a means of
learning appropriate social interaction (Feddersen-Petersen
2008). However, solitary play is less common, and
its construction and motivation are poorly documented
(Feddersen-Petersen 2008; Horwitz et al. 2002).
From an animal welfare perspective, establishing the
motivation behind habituation to objects, and the nature of
any subsequent recovery in response that restores object-
orientated play, should help to predict the effectiveness of
inanimate enrichments, the time interval needed between
successive presentations of any enrichment for effective or
prolonged enrichment, and which cues lead to both habit-
uation and dishabituation.
The study described here aimed to determine the fol-
lowing: the time taken by dogs to habituate to a manipu-
lable, interactive, ‘play’ object over repeated presentations
(experiments 1 and 2); the extent of dishabituation when
visual and/or olfactory characteristics of the play object
were changed (experiment 1); and the effect on dishabit-
uation of changing the interval between habituation and the
presentation of the contrasting play object (experiment 3).
General methodology
Husbandry
The study was carried out at the WALTHAMÒ Centre for
Pet Nutrition, Leicestershire. The dogs were housed in
pairs, in pens arranged around an octagonal central court
(Loveridge 1998). The dogs had constant access to an
123
Anim Cogn
indoor pen (3.05 m2) with a raised, bed area (facing a
central area and other dog pens) and an outdoor covered
area (4.15 m2); additional access to an outdoor paddock
was available during the day with access to large dog toys
in the paddocks such as Aussie hanging balls (Aussie dog
products, AU), as well as platforms and staging to climb
on. The indoor pen area could be sectioned off using a
lockable dog flap. Overnight, pens were provided with
fleece bedding and nylon chews, considered safe for
unsupervised interaction. In addition to exercise in pad-
docks with other dogs throughout the day, each dog
received at least one half hour of structured interaction with
a person per day: this could consist of either a walk with off
lead interaction in an enclosed field, interactive play in
paddocks with kennel staff, or obedience training. The
kennel staff also spent time interacting individually with
dogs in their pens or paddocks on an ad hoc basis.
Destructible toys were only made available when the dog
was interacting with kennel staff due to the risk of
destruction and ingestion during unsupervised interaction.
The dogs could maintain visual contact with kennel staff
throughout the day. All the dogs were clicker trained for
basic obedience commands such as ‘sit’ and ‘wait’ on a
daily basis. This continued throughout the study period.
Study area
The experiments were undertaken in a room in one of the
dog housing areas (approximately 4.2 m 9 4.0 m). The
dogs were acclimatised to the room prior to the studies as
part of their daily walks.
Study subjects
Sixteen adult (1–8 years) Labrador retrievers (LR) (9 neu-
tered males, 4 neutered females, 3 intact females) from 9
litters were randomly chosen from the dogs at the centre. The
dogs were normally used for non-invasive feeding trials. All
dogs were used for experiment 1. Seven of these dogs, all of
which had interacted with and subsequently habituated to the
toy, were studied in experiment 2. Fifteen of the dogs were
used in experiment 3: one dog that had not shown any interest
in the toys in experiment 1 was not tested.
Experiment 1: The effect of visual and olfactory cues
on habituation
Procedure
Experiments were carried out on days 1, 3, and 5 of a five-
day period, with a distraction day on days 2 and 4 to reduce
the expectation of subsequent experimental days and to
Anim Cogn
minimise any carryover of habituation due to previous
treatments. All dogs were presented with experiment 1a on
day 1, half the dogs were given experiment 1b on day 3 and
then 1c on day 5, and the other half were given 1c on day 3
and then 1b on day 5.
Experiment 1a: Visual and olfactory cues
Two manipulable objects were used for the experiment on
day one: identical soft zoomorphic toys (20 cm 9 15 cm 9
8 cm; Chubleez ‘Plush Squeaky Sniffer Dog Toy’, UK)
with an internal squeaker that sounded when mouthed by
the dog, varying only in colour: one was blue and one
brown/yellow. The dogs were taken to the test room indi-
vidually and given 2 min to settle. The experimenter, an
unfamiliar female, 26 years, then placed the first toy on the
floor, 0.5 m from the door (Presentation 1.1, hereafter
abbreviated P1.1) and left the room. After 30 s, she
removed the toy from the test room, ending P1.1. Ten
seconds later, the same toy was presented again in exactly
the same way as before (P1.2). P1.2 was then repeated until
the dog no longer interacted with the toy for more than the
first 10 s of the presentation: this was taken to indicate the
point at which the dog had habituated to the first toy and
was designated the final presentation of toy 1, P1F. This
toy was then removed; after a 10-s delay, the second toy
was placed on the floor (P2). After 30 s, this toy was
removed and the experiment ended. If any dog showed no
interest in toy 1 after the first three presentations, or the dog
continued to interact with toy 1 after 10 presentations and
therefore had failed to habituate, the experiment was ter-
minated at that point.
The experiment was performed on all 16 dogs on day 1,
using fresh toys for each dog. Eight of the dogs were
presented with a blue toy first and eight dogs with a brown/
yellow toy to balance any effect of preference for toy
colour. The toys were washed prior to the start of the
experiment (and between all subsequent test days) using
the washing powder used to wash the dogs’ bedding. Any
handling of the toys was carried out using rubber gloves to
minimise any preference due to deposited human scent.
The toys and test room were cleaned between every dog
studied to avoid any effects of scent from the preceding
dogs.
The dogs were then randomly allocated to one of two
groups, so that half received experiment 1b on day 3 and
experiment 1c on day 5 while the other dogs received
experiment 1c on day 3 and experiment 1b on day 5.
Experiment 1b: Olfactory cues
Experiment 1a was repeated, except that both toy 1 and toy
2 were the same colour. This restricted the contrast,
between the last presentation of toy 1 (P1F) and the only
presentation of toy 2 (P2), to the absence of the dogs’ own
olfactory cues that were assumed to have accumulated on
the toy through saliva, etc., during the repeated presenta-
tions of toy 1.
Experiment 1c: Visual cues
Experiment 1a was repeated, but the dogs were presented
with a different toy of the same colour every time toy 1 was
presented, followed by a clean toy of the opposite colour
once habituation had been reached (P2).
Distraction days The dog was taken to the test room and
given 2 min to settle. The experimenter entered the test room,
but no toy was given. After 30 s, the experimenter entered the
room in the same way as she had done when removing the toy
and then exited the room. This was repeated a further 10 times
to reduce the anticipation of a toy being presented every time
the experimenter entered the room.
Data recording Interactions with the toys were recorded
using remote video cameras mounted above the test room.
An interaction was defined as anything other than sniffing
or accidental contact, so included contact with the mouth or
paw, such as mouthing, chewing, and pawing at the toy.
Intra-(AJP) and inter-observer reliability (AJP, JWSB) had
been established for this measure in the previous studies
using dogs at the same establishment (Pullen 2011; Pullen
et al. 2010, 2012).
The video recordings were analysed using Observer 5.0
(Noldus, Wageningen) to determine total duration of
interaction with the toy during each presentation (seconds)
and the number of presentations to habituation.
Statistical analysis Data were analysed using SPSS 14.0
(SPSS Inc, Chicago). None of the data were normally
distributed, so hypotheses were examined using nonpara-
metric tests. The dog that failed to habituate was excluded
from further analysis.
Proportions of dogs reaching criterion for habituation
were compared between experiments by a Cochran Q-test.
A Friedman test was applied to compare the effect of
treatments 1a, 1b, and 1c on the number of presentations of
toy 1 to habituation. Wilcoxon tests were then used to look
at pairwise comparisons between the three treatments.
Recovery (defined as the difference in duration of inter-
action between P1.1 and P2) and dishabituation (difference
in duration of interaction between P1F and P2) were
compared between the three treatment groups (1a, 1b, and
1c) using Kruskal–Wallis tests. The magnitude of the
recovery was tested against a null hypothesis of zero with
Wilcoxon tests.
123
 Anim Cogn

Table 1 Habituation during the three trials in experiment 1 for all 16

dogs
Experiment
1a 1b 1c

Habituated 11 10 8
No habituation 4 5 7
No interest 1 1 1
‘Habituated’ dogs stopped interacting with the toy within the first 10 s
of a presentation between the second and the tenth presentation of toy
1. ‘No habituation’ dogs did not stop interacting within the first 10 s
of any of the 10 presentations. ‘No interest’ dogs did not interact with
the toy for more than 10 s during any of the first three presentations

Results

The number of dogs habituating within 10 presentations

was similar for all three treatments (69, 63, and 50 %:
Cochran Q = 0.5, P [ 0.50). One dog showed no interest
in the toys (Table 1).
For the dogs that habituated in one or more treatments
(N = 11), the median number of presentations to habitation
was 5.0 when colour and olfactory cues were altered together
(1a), and 4.0 when they were altered independently (1b and
1c). No overall difference was apparent between treatments
(Friedman chi-squared = 2.31, P \ 0.32). All pairs of
treatments were then compared to assess whether some were
more similar than others (noting that treatments 1a and 1b
were identical up to the point of habituation), but the distri-
bution of P values appeared to be random (experiment 1a vs.
1b, Wilcoxon T = 43, P \ 0.21; experiment 1a vs. 1c,
T = 36, P \ 0.42; experiment 1b vs. 1c, T = 48, P \ 0.10).
The degree of dishabituation (difference in duration of
interaction between P1F and P2) was similar across the
three treatment groups (Kruskal–Wallis = 0.81, P \ 0.67)
(Fig. 1). Recoveries, the differences between durations of
interaction during the first presentations of the two toys
(P1.1 and P2), were also similar for all three treatments
(Kruskal–Wallis = 0.67, P \ 0.72). Treatments could
therefore be combined by averaging within dogs. The
average dishabituation was highly significant (Wilcoxon
T = 65, P \ 0.001). The median of the average recovery
was 4.0 s, which is not significantly different from zero
(Wilcoxon T = 40, P \ 0.29), indicating that play returned
to approximately its original intensity after the toy was
changed.
Fig. 1 Boxplots of duration of interaction (s) with toys at presenta-
tion 1.1 (first presentation of toy 1), presentation 1F (final presen-
Discussion tation of toy 1 at the point of habituation), and presentation 2
(presentation of toy 2, following habituation to toy 1), by the dogs that
All three parts of this experiment confirm that dogs habituated within 10 presentations (N = 11, 10, and 8 for experiments
1a, 1b, and 1c, respectively) for visual and olfactory contrast between
habituate rapidly to manipulable objects and that changes
1F and 2 (a), visual contrast only (b), and olfactory contrast only (c).
in the sensory characteristics of the objects lead to imme- Heavy horizontal lines indicate medians, boxes indicate 25th and 75th
diate resumption of play. The extent of the dishabituation percentiles, and error bars indicate minima and maxima

123
Anim Cogn
shows that the dogs’ motivation for object play had not
diminished to any great extent over any of the treatments.
Changes in colour and (presumed) odour cues appeared to
be equally effective in causing dishabituation; this suggests
that the alteration in any cue, whether visual or olfactory,
may be sufficient to induce dishabituation. Habituation,
therefore, appears to occur in parallel to each of the stim-
ulus properties of the toy, rather than any particular sensory
modality taking precedence. A remote possibility that has
to be considered is that habituation was primarily driven by
cues other than colour or odour, although it is unclear what
these could be, and this would not explain why dishabitu-
ation is almost complete when only colour and/or odour is
changed.
Thompson (2009) suggests that whenever regular pre-
sentation of a stimulus occurs, habituation will become
evident. All mammals able to exhibit habituation to a
stimulus appear capable of showing dishabituation (Harris
1943 cited Thompson 2009). By viewing dishabituation as
the ‘neutralisation’ of the habituation, a distinction can
then be made between that and ‘fatigue’ or loss of moti-
vation (Humphrey 1933 cited in Thompson 2009). In rats,
habituation was found to occur when presented with either
auditory or tactile cues. However, generalised habituation
was also apparent but not clearly distinguishable between
increased habituation and decreased sensitisation to the
stimulus (Vogel and Wagner 2005).
Over time, habituation can become more rapid through
training and recovery (Thompson 2009) or simply through
repeated presentation of unchanging objects (Tarou and
Bashaw 2007). This was not evident in the experiment
reported here, possibly because each dog was only sub-
jected to 3 experimental periods in experiment one, and a
combination of distraction days, delays between experi-
ments (of a number of weeks), and randomisation of trial
orders within experiments were all employed to negate
these potential effects.
The almost complete dishabituation that occurred when
the toy presented was visually identical to the toy to which
the dog had become habituated was unexpected. It is highly
unlikely that any small differences in visual appearance
between the two toys provided the salient contrast, since
short-range vision is poorer in dogs than it is in humans
(Miller and Murphy 1995). While minor textural differ-
ences cannot be ruled out, the most likely explanation for
the dishabituation is the contrast in odour that arose from a
clean toy being substituted for a toy that had been repeat-
edly chewed by the dog and therefore would have smelled
of its own saliva. This highlights both the dog’s highly
sensitive olfaction (Walker et al. 2006) and the salience
which dogs attach to what might seem to primates such as
humans to be trivial differences in odour.
Furthermore, it emphasises that consideration should be
given to interpretations based upon contrasts in odour in
experiments that involve objects that could have been
contaminated by odours that are detectable by dogs but not
by humans. Such changes in odour could result from
contact with either dogs or humans. For example, in the
movie clip presented by Kaminski et al. (2004), the subject
dog repeatedly sniffs and mouths the novel object in the set
before being given the novel cue word to retrieve it. He
also sniffs the familiar objects in the set; presumably, these
emit odours derived from himself and his owner. His
behaviour suggests that the unfamiliar odour of the new
object makes it particularly salient and therefore likely to
be retrieved spontaneously, unless overridden by a com-
mand previously associated with a specific object.
Experiment 2: The effect of time interval
between presentations on habituation
Procedure
The same two types of toy used in experiment 1 were used
for experiment 2. The method of presentation used in
experiment 1a (the same toy for Presentation 1 followed by
the other colour toy for P2) was used since it had caused
the greatest number of dogs to habituate in experiment 1
and was therefore considered the most effective combina-
tion to lead to habituation in future experiments.
The dog was taken to the test room and given 2 min to
settle. It was then presented with the first toy (P1.1). After
30 s, the toy was removed from the room. After a fixed
time interval that varied between treatments, the same toy
was presented again (P1.2). This continued until the dog no
longer interacted with the toy for more than the first 10 s of
the presentation (P1F) (up to 10 presentations). At this
point, the toy was removed. Following a 10-s interval, the
second toy (P2) was presented. After 30 s, the toy was
removed, signalling the end of the experiment.
Each dog was studied on odd-numbered days over a
9-day period. The treatments consisted of five different
delay intervals (either 10, 30 s, 1, 3, or 10 min) arranged in
a balanced order for each dog using a Latin square design.
On each day, the same delay was inserted between all
presentations, until habituation occurred. Distraction, as for
experiment 1, was performed on the days between each
study day.
Comparisons between the number of presentations to
habituation were made between the five treatments (time
intervals) using a Friedman test. Recovery and dishabitu-
ation were compared between the five time intervals using
Kruskal–Wallis tests.
123

Fig. 2 Boxplot of duration of interaction (s) with toys at presentation
1.1 (first presentation of toy 1), presentation 1F (final presentation of
toy 1 at the point of habituation), and presentation 2 (presentation of
toy 2, following habituation to toy 1) (means for all 6 time intervals
combined) by the seven dogs that habituated within 10 presentations
in experiment 2
Results
The median number of presentations of toy 1 to habituation
was 4.0 for the 10, 30 s, 3, and 10 min between-presenta-
tion intervals, and 3.0 for the 1-min interval: overall, no
effect of interval was apparent (Friedman chi-
squared = 2.48, P \ 0.65). The average durations of
interaction for habituation and dishabituation (Fig. 2) were
very similar to those in experiments 1a–c (Fig. 1).
Discussion
Habituation over short time intervals appeared to be
insensitive to the time between presentations. From the
consistent median of four presentations to habituation for
all time intervals of 10 min or less, dogs seem to have a
pattern of habituation that is insensitive to the temporary
absence of the stimuli that are becoming habituated, indi-
cating that they remember those precise characteristics for
at least 10 min. Thompson (2009) suggests, from a review
of earlier studies by Harris (1943), Glanzer (1953), and
Welker (1961), that ‘the more rapid frequency of stimu-
lation, the more rapid and/or more pronounced the habit-
uation’. In this study, even when the inter-stimulus
intervals were brief, neither was found to be the case. This
lack of sensitivity to interruption is markedly different to
that observed in ‘classic’ habituation experiments. It is
unlikely that ‘ceiling’ effects played a part, since few dogs
played with the object for the full 30 s even on the first
presentation. Thus, it is possible that object play behaviour
in dogs is terminated by mechanisms that are different
from, even if superficially similar to, habituation: the same
123
Anim Cogn
may apply to object play in another member of the Car-
nivora, the domestic cat Felis silvestris catus (Hall et al.
2002). Extending the time interval between presentations to
15 min or longer would presumably eventually increase the
number of exposures required to reach the habituation
criterion. However, if the time period between each pre-
sentation was very long, the dogs might not associate the
presentations together as belonging to the same play ses-
sion, therefore potentially introducing a different motiva-
tional basis for any change in response compared to the
shorter time periods. This might be possible to investigate
further using distractions (e.g. feeding or social play)
during the intervals between presentations of the toys.
Experiment 3: The effect of delay on dishabituation
Procedure
The procedure was identical to experiment 2, except that
the interval between each presentation of toy 1 (P1) was
fixed at 10 s, and the treatments consisted of varying
interval between the final presentation of toy 1 (P1F) and
the presentation of toy 2 (P2) (10, 30 s, 1, 5, 10, or
15 min).
Each dog was studied on odd-numbered days over an
11-day period, with treatments arranged in a balanced order
for each dog using a Latin square design. Each study day
was followed by a distraction day, as per experiment 1.
Recovery and dishabituation were also compared
between the six time intervals of the experiment 3 data
using Kruskal–Wallis tests.
Results
The median number of presentations of toy 1 to habituation
was 4.5. Averaging across all intervals, the durations of
play for the first presentations of the two toys (P1.1 and P2)
were similar to each other and to those in experiment 1
(Fig. 3). Varying the time interval (10 s up to 15 min)
between the final presentation of toy 1, that is, once
habituation had been reached, and the presentation of P2
did not affect either the recovery (Kruskal–Wallis = 1.56,
P \ 0.91) or the dishabituation (Kruskal–Wallis = 6.05,
P \ 0.30).
Discussion
Dishabituation appeared to be insensitive to the duration of
the delay since habituation. However, the relatively short
maximum time interval used (15 min) may not have been
sufficient to induce an observable effect. Dishabituation in
cats did not diminish until the delay reached 25 min (Hall
Anim Cogn
Fig. 3 Boxplot of duration of interaction (s) with toys at presentation
1.1 (first presentation of toy 1), presentation 1F (final presentation of
toy 1 at the point of habituation), and presentation 2 (presentation of
toy 2, following habituation to toy 1) (means for all 5 time intervals
combined) by the 12 dogs that habituated within 10 presentations in
experiment 3
et al. 2002), so the same response might occur in dogs if the
time interval was extended beyond 15 min. The large post-
inhibitory rebound occurring in cats when the time interval
was reduced to 5 min, such that play became more intense
than at the first presentation, was not observed in the dogs
at this or any shorter time interval, suggesting that both
habituation and dishabituation during object play may be
qualitatively different in dogs as compared to cats (Hall
et al. 2002). However, several dogs played for almost the
whole of the 30 s available in P1.1 (see Fig. 3), and
therefore, any increase in play when P2 was presented
would have only been detectable for the dogs that did not
play throughout P1.1.
The motivation behind play is likely to be a contributing
factor in the extent of dishabituation. In cats, object play
appears to be a form of redirected hunting behaviour,
which can lead to dishabituation that reaches a greater level
than the initial play interaction (Hall et al. 2002). In con-
trast, object play in dogs may be an extension of juvenile
play, resulting from the neotenisation of dogs through the
domestication process (Bradshaw and Brown 1990; Frank
and Frank 1982). This difference between the domestic cat
and the domestic dog in their putative motivations for play
may explain the differences observed between the species
in their responses to dishabituation.
Conclusion
The almost complete dishabituation observed in both these
experiments when superficially trivial aspects of the toys
were changed is consistent with the powerful neophilia for
toys demonstrated by Kaulfuß and Mills (2008). However,
the unexpected lack of sensitivity to interruption of both
habituation and dishabituation suggests that more complex
inhibitory mechanisms may be involved in this species,
apparently reinforcing the effects of ‘classical’ habituation.
Since the results obtained here are broadly similar to
those found for domestic cats, it is clear that such habitu-
ation and dishabituation are common phenomena in the
object play of adult domesticated carnivores. Whether this
also applies to juveniles, which engage in more play than
adults do, remains to be tested.
More generally, our findings may be usefully applied to
environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs. It may be
possible to rekindle interest in objects provided to stimulate
play by altering any cue from the toy that is perceptible by
the dog, so long as the toy remains a desired play object
and motivation to play has not diminished (Celli et al.
2003; Tarou and Bashaw 2007). If the latter is the case,
play is unlikely to restart, at least within 30 min or so,
regardless of the changes made.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the BBSRC
and WALTHAMÒ Centre for Pet Nutrition for funding the project
(studentship to AJP). We are also grateful to WCPN for providing the
facilities and dogs to enable the research to be undertaken.
Conflict of interest Ralph Merrill is an employee of the WAL-
THAMÒ Centre for Pet Nutrition. Anne Pullen was in receipt of a
studentship partially funded by the WALTHAMÒ Centre for Pet
Nutrition. John Bradshaw has no financial relationship with either of
the bodies that sponsored the research.
Ethical standards Approval was obtained from the University of
Bristol Ethics Committee for all the experiments described in this
paper. As part of this process, confirmation was obtained that none of
the procedures used required a licence from the UK Home Office.
References
Bradshaw JWS, Brown SL (1990) Behavioural adaptations of dogs to
domestication. In: Burger IH (ed.) Pets, benefits and practice.
Waltham symposium, vol 20. BVA Publications, London,
pp 18–24
Celli ML, Tomonaga M, Udono T, Teramoto M, Nagano K (2003)
Tool use task as environmental enrichment for captive chim-
panzees. Appl Anim Behav Sci 81:171–182
Coppinger R, Schneider R (1995) Evolution of working dogs. In:
Serpell J (ed) The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and
interactions with people. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp 21–47
Feddersen-Petersen DU (2008) Social behaviour of dogs and related
canids. In: Jensen P (ed) The behavioural biology of the dog.
CABI International, Wallingford, pp 105–119
Frank H, Frank MG (1982) On the effects of domestication on canine
social development and behavior. Appl Anim Ethol 8:507–525
Glanzer M (1953) Stimulus satiation: an explanation of spontaneous
alternation and related phenomena. Psychol Rev 60:257–268
Hall SL, Bradshaw JWS (1998) The influence of hunger on object
play by adult domestic cats. Appl Anim Behav Sci 58:143–150
123

Hall SL, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2002) Object play in adult
domestic cats: the roles of habituation and disinhibition. Appl
Anim Behav Sci 79:263–271
Harris JD (1943) Habituatory response decrement in the intact
organism. Psychol Bull 40:385–422
Horwitz D, Mills D, Heath S (eds) (2002) BSAVA manual of canine
and feline behavioural medicine. BSAVA, Wallingford
Hubrecht R (1993) A comparison of social and environmental
enrichment methods for laboratory housed dogs. Appl Anim
Behav Sci 37:345–361
Kaminski J, Call J, Fischer J (2004) Word learning in a domestic dog:
evidence for ‘‘fast-mapping’’. Science 304:1682–1683
Kaulfuß P, Mills DS (2008) Neophilia in domestic dogs (Canis
familiaris) and its implication for studies of dog cognition. Anim
Cogn 11:553–556
Kennedy JS (1985) Displacement activities and post-inhibitory
rebound. Anim Behav 33:1375–1377
Line SW, Morgan KN, Markowitz H (1991) Simple toys do not alter
the behavior of aged rhesus monkeys. Zool Biol 10:473–484
Loveridge GG (1998) Environmentally enriched dog housing. Appl
Anim Behav Sci 59:101–113
Miller PE, Murphy CJ (1995) Vision in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc
207:1623–1634
Pullen AJ (2011) Behavioural indicators of candidate enrichments for
kennel housed dogs. PhD thesis, University of Bristol
Pullen AJ, Merrill RJN, Bradshaw JWS (2010) Preferences for toy
types and presentations in kennel housed dogs. Appl Anim
Behav Sci 125:151–156
123
Anim Cogn
Pullen AJ, Merrill RJN, Bradshaw JWS (2012) The effect of
familiarity on behaviour of kennel housed dogs during interac-
tions with humans. Appl Anim Behav Sci 137:66–73
Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS, Robinson IH (2000) A comparison of
dog-dog and dog-human play behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci
66:235–248
Roper TJ (1984) Response of thirsty rats to absence of water:
frustration, disinhibition or compensation? Anim Behav 32:
1225–1235
Tarou LR, Bashaw MJ (2007) Maximizing the effectiveness of
environmental enrichment: suggestions from the experimental
analysis of behavior. Appl Anim Behav Sci 102:1189–1204
Thompson RF (2009) Habituation: a history. Neurobiol Learn Mem
92:127–134
Vogel EH, Wagner AR (2005) Stimulus specificity in the habituation
of the startle response in the rat. Physiol Behav 86:516–525
Walker DB, Walker JC, Cavnar PJ, Taylor JL, Pickel DH, Hall SB,
Suarez JC (2006) Naturalistic quantification of canine olfactory
sensitivity. Appl Anim Behav Sci 97:241–254
Welker WI (1961) An analysis of exploratory and play behavior in
animals. In: Fiskem DW, Maddi SR (eds) Functions of varied
experience. Homewood IL, Dorsey, pp 175–226
Wells DL (2004a) The influence of toys on the behaviour and welfare
of kennelled dogs. Anim Welf 13:367–373
Wells DL (2004b) A review of environmental enrichment for
kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris. Appl Anim Behav Sci 85:
307–317