What is the ability of the microscope to distinguish small gaps between two separate points which humans Cannot distinguish?

1. Astington, J. W. The paradox of intention: assessing children’s meta representational understanding. In Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social Cognition Vol. 4 (eds Malle, B. F. et al.) 85–103 (The MIT Press, 2001).

2. Bratman M. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press; 1987. [Google Scholar]

3. Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1978;1:515–526. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00076512. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

4. Hare B, Call J, Tomasello M. Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Anim. Behav. 2001;61:139–151. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1518. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M. Chimpanzees know what others know, but not what they believe. Cognition. 2008;109:224–234. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Ostoji L, et al. Can male Eurasian jays disengage from their own current desire to feed the female what she wants? Biol. Lett. 2014;10:20140042–20140042. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2014.0042. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Krupenye C, Call J. Theory of mind in animals: Current and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2019;10:e1503. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1503. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Call J, Tomasello M. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? 30 years later. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008;12:187–192. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.02.010. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Emery NJ, Clayton NS. Comparative social cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2009;60:87–113. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163526. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Woodward A. Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition. 1998;69:1–34. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00058-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Carpenter M, Akhtar N, Tomasello M. Fourteen-through 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behav. Dev. 1998;21:315–330. doi: 10.1016/S0163-6383(98)90009-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

12. Behne T, Carpenter M, Call J, Tomasello M. Unwilling versus unable: Infants’ understanding of intentional action. Dev. Psychol. 2005;41:328–337. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.328. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Meltzoff AN. Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Dev. Psychol. 1995;31:838–850. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Kaminski J, Marshall-Pescini S. The Social Dog: Behavior and Cognition. Elsevier; 2014. [Google Scholar]

15. Previde, E. P. & Valsecchi, P. The immaterial cord: The dog–human attachment bond. In The Social Dog (eds. Kaminski, J. & Marshall-Pescini, S.) 165–189 (Elsevier, 2014).

16. Bergström A, et al. Origins and genetic legacy of prehistoric dogs. Science. 2020;370:557–564. doi: 10.1126/science.aba9572. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Kaminski J, Schulz L, Tomasello M. How dogs know when communication is intended for them: How dogs know … Dev. Sci. 2012;15:222–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01120.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

18. Call J, Hare B, Carpenter M, Tomasello M. ‘Unwilling’ versus ‘unable’: Chimpanzees’ understanding of human intentional action. Dev. Sci. 2004;7:488–498. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00368.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Canteloup C, Meunier H. ‘Unwilling’ versus ‘unable’: Tonkean macaques’ understanding of human goal-directed actions. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3227. doi: 10.7717/peerj.3227. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Marsh HL, Stavropoulos J, Nienhuis T, Legerstee M. Six- and 9-Month-Old infants discriminate between goals despite similar action patterns. Infancy. 2010;15:94–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2009.00002.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Péron F, Rat-Fischer L, Nagle L, Bovet D. ‘Unwilling’versus ‘unable’: Do grey parrots understand human intentional actions? Interact. Stud. 2010;11:428–441. doi: 10.1075/is.11.3.06per. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Phillips W, Barnes JL, Mahajan N, Yamaguchi M, Santos LR. ‘Unwilling’ versus ‘unable’: Capuchin monkeys’ (Cebus apella) understanding of human intentional action: Unwilling vs. unable in capuchin monkeys. Dev. Sci. 2009;12:938–945. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00840.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Trösch M, Bertin E, Calandreau L, Nowak R, Lansade L. Unwilling or willing but unable: Can horses interpret human actions as goal directed? Anim. Cogn. 2020;23:1035–1040. doi: 10.1007/s10071-020-01396-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Call J, Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Tomasello M. Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. J. Comp. Psychol. 2003;117:257–263. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.117.3.257. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Varga O, Topál J, Csányi V. Are readers of our face readers of our minds? Dogs (Canis familiaris) show situation-dependent recognition of human’s attention. Anim. Cogn. 2004;7:144–153. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0205-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi Á, Csányi V. Dogs respond appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behav. Process. 2004;66:161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2004.01.012. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

27. Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M. Visual perspective taking in dogs (Canis familiaris) in the presence of barriers. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004;88:299–317. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Kaminski J, Tomasello M, Call J, Bräuer J. Domestic dogs are sensitive to a human’s perspective. Behaviour. 2009;146:979–998. doi: 10.1163/156853908X395530. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Virányi Z, Topál J, Miklósi Á, Csányi V. A nonverbal test of knowledge attribution: a comparative study on dogs and children. Anim. Cogn. 2006;9:13–26. doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0257-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Kaminski J, Pitsch A, Tomasello M. Dogs steal in the dark. Anim. Cogn. 2013;16:385–394. doi: 10.1007/s10071-012-0579-6. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Bräuer J, Kaminski J, Riedel J, Call J, Tomasello M. Making inferences about the location of hidden food: Social dog, causal ape. J. Comp. Psychol. 2006;120:38–47. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.120.1.38. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Hare B. The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science. 2002;298:1634–1636. doi: 10.1126/science.1072702. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

33. Kirchhofer KC, Zimmermann F, Kaminski J, Tomasello M. Dogs (Canis familiaris), but not chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), understand imperative pointing. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e30913. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030913. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Miklósi Á, Soproni K. A comparative analysis of animals’ understanding of the human pointing gesture. Anim. Cogn. 2006;9:81–93. doi: 10.1007/s10071-005-0008-1. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

35. Krause, M. A. & Mitchell, R. W. Object-choice test. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (eds. Vonk, J. & Shackelford, T.) 1–12 (Springer International Publishing, 2018).

36. Bräuer, J. What dogs understand about humans. In The Social Dog (eds. Kaminski, J. & Marshall-Pescini, S.) 295–317 (Elsevier, 2014).

37. Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J, Csányi V. Comprehension of human communicative signs in pet dogs (Canis familiaris) J. Comp. Psychol. 2001;115:122–126. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Téglás E, Gergely A, Kupán K, Miklósi Á, Topál J. Dogs’ gaze following is tuned to human communicative signals. Curr. Biol. 2012;22:209–212. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.018. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Scheider L, Grassmann S, Kaminski J, Tomasello M. Domestic dogs use contextual information and tone of voice when following a human pointing gesture. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:76. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021676. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Kaminski J, Nitzschner M. Do dogs get the point? A review of dog–human communication ability. Learn. Motiv. 2013;44:294–302. doi: 10.1016/j.lmot.2013.05.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

41. Marshall-Pescini S, Ceretta M, Prato-Previde E. Do domestic dogs understand human actions as goal-directed? PLoS ONE. 2014;9:6530. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106530. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Piotti P, Kaminski J. Do dogs provide information helpfully? PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159797. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159797. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Range F, Viranyi Z, Huber L. Selective imitation in domestic dogs. Curr. Biol. 2007;17:868–872. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2007.04.026. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Fugazza C, Petro E, Miklósi Á, Pogány Á. Social learning of goal-directed actions in dogs (Canis familiaris): Imitation or emulation? J. Comp. Psychol. 2019;133:244. doi: 10.1037/com0000149. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Heyes C. Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2014;9:131–143. doi: 10.1177/1745691613518076. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Heyes C. Animal mindreading: What’s the problem? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2015;22:313–327. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0704-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

47. Kaminski J, et al. Do dogs distinguish rational from irrational acts? Anim. Behav. 2011;81:195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.10.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Kaminski J, Neumann M, Bräuer J, Call J, Tomasello M. Dogs, Canis familiaris, communicate with humans to request but not to inform. Anim. Behav. 2011;82:651–658. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.06.015. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Udell MAR, Dorey NR, Wynne CDL. What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biol. Rev. 2010;85:327–345. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2009.00104.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Bräuer J. I do not understand but I care: The prosocial dog. Interact. Stud. 2015;16:341–360. doi: 10.1075/is.16.3.01bra. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

51. Searle, J. R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. (Cambridge University Press, 1983).

52. Povinelli DJ, Vonk J. We don’t need a microscope to explore the chimpanzee’s mind. Mind Lang. 2004;19:1–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2004.00244.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

53. Mariti C, et al. Analysis of the intraspecific visual communication in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris): A pilot study on the case of calming signals. J. Vet. Behav. 2017;18:49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2016.12.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

54. Sheppard, G. & Mills, D. S. The Development of a Psychometric Scale for the Evaluation of the Emotional Predispositions of Pet Dogs. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 15, 201–222 (2002).

55. Bräuer J, Schönefeld K, Call J. When do dogs help humans? Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013;148:138–149. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2013.07.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

56. Beerda B, Schilder MBH, van Hooff JARAM, de Vries HW. Manifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997;52:307–319. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01131-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

57. Abrantes, R. Dog Language. (Dogwise Publishing, 1997).

58. Bradshaw, J. W. & Nott, H. M. Social and communication behaviour of companion dogs. In The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (ed. Serpell, J.) 115–130 (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

59. Petter M, Musolino E, Roberts WA, Cole M. Can dogs (Canis familiaris) detect human deception? Behav. Processes. 2009;82:109–118. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.07.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Correia-Caeiro C, Guo K, Mills DS. Perception of dynamic facial expressions of emotion between dogs and humans. Anim. Cogn. 2020;23:465–476. doi: 10.1007/s10071-020-01348-5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Albuquerque N, et al. Dogs recognize dog and human emotions. Biol. Lett. 2016;12:20150883. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0883. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

62. Barber ALA, Randi D, Müller CA, Huber L. The processing of human emotional faces by pet and lab dogs: evidence for lateralization and experience effects. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0152393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152393. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Reid PJ. Adapting to the human world: Dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues. Behav. Processes. 2009;80:325–333. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.11.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

64. Friard O, Gamba M. BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2016;7:1325–1330. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12584. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Page 2

PMC full text:

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.