Previous studies conducted in the U.S. and Brazil have demonstrated that humans can recognize dog emotions from static images of canine eyes or full faces (Bloom et al., 2021; Burza et al., 2022). The present study aimed to replicate and extend these findings in a Japanese context, investigating whether the ability to interpret dog emotions generalizes across cultures. Japanese participants (N = 342) were shown photographs of three dog breeds previously used by Burza et al. (2022) and asked to presume the dog's emotional state. Results revealed that Japanese participants identified presumed dog emotions at levels significantly above chance, both when viewing full-face images and eye-only images. Accuracy was notably higher for full-face images, supporting the idea that broader facial context enhances accurate identification of emotion. Dog ownership had no effect on accuracy, and participants' ability to recognize human emotions did not predict their performance with dogs. This suggests that interpreting canine emotions may rely on distinct cognitive mechanisms. Whereas the overall findings replicate previous results from Western populations, some cross-cultural differences emerged in which specific emotions were most accurately identified. These differences underscore the cultural factors and perceptual biases in cross-species emotion interpretation. In sum, the study suggests that humans possess a moderate but consistent ability to interpret dog emotions from facial cues, and that this capacity, whereas partially universal, may be shaped by cultural context.
The ephemeral reward task (ERT), employed in animal cognition research, appears deceptively straightforward but seems to be counterintuitive for many lab animals. Our study explored the performance of kea (Nestor notabilis) on this task, in two different setups based on previously used methodologies: one with direct visible reward presentation, and one with non-visible rewards plus a spatial component. Additionally, we investigated their ability, using the same setups, to choose two pieces of reward as opposed to one in a basic quantity discrimination task (QDT), as this is the outcome of the ERT meant to motivate choosing optimally. The results showed that a greater proportion of kea successfully solved the ERT when the rewards were directly visible, compared to when they were non-visible. Likewise, in the QDT, the kea exhibited a preference for selecting two pieces of reward over one, with higher success rates observed in the setup with visible rewards. More kea solved the QDT than the ERT. However, not all subjects successfully solved the QDT within the standard 100 trials, and none did so spontaneously from the first session; suggesting that the presence of two outcomes alone is not the only hurdle for subjects to overcome.

