Study shows why dogs respond to voices
When you hear a friend's voice, you immediately picture her, even if you can't see her. And from the tone of her speech, you quickly gauge if she's happy or sad. You can do all of this because your human brain has a “voice area.” Now, scientists using MRIs and a crew of canines have discovered that dog brains, too, have dedicated voice areas. The finding helps explain how canines can be attuned to human feelings.
“It's absolutely brilliant, groundbreaking research,” said Pascal Belin, a neuroscientist at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, who was part of the team that identified the voice areas in the human brain in 2000. “They've made the first comparative study using nonhuman primates of the cerebral processing of voices, and they've done it with a noninvasive technique by training dogs to lie in a scanner.”
The researchers from Hungary found that emotionally charged sounds, such as crying or laughter, prompted similar responses, perhaps explaining why dogs are attuned to human emotions.
The work is published in the journal Current Biology.
Attila Andics of the Hungarian Academy of Science said: “We think dogs and humans have a very similar mechanism to process emotional information.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Carnegie Mellon expert to school Congress on security
- Tribune-Review poll: Cable news rises as network news falls
- Lawmakers press Veterans Affairs for improved access to rural health care
- $4.8M in gold taken in armored truck hijacking in North Carolina
- Dems keep blocking joint negotiations on immigration orders
- EPA ripped for evading request for information
- Several states in path of wintry blasts
- Clinton portrait refers to Lewinsky scandal, Philadelphia artist says
- Gag order challenged in W.Va. mine disaster case
- Republicans try to jump-start food stamp reforms
- Hillary Clinton may have broken federal record-keeping laws, New York Times reports