{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.044534412955465584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018218623481781375, 'mean_word_length': 4.823529411764706, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on “Differential Sensitivity to Human Communication in Dogs, Wolves, and Human Infants”

Topál et al. (Reports, 4 September 2009, p. 1269) reported that dogs’ sensitivity to reading and using human signals contributes to the emergence of a spatial perseveration error (the A-not-B error) for locating objects. Here, I argue that the authors’ conclusion was biased by two confounding factors: the use of an atypical A-not-B search task and an inadequate nonsocial condition as a control.