The Effect of Transparency on Unsolvable Task Engagement in Domestic Cats (Felis catus) using Citizen Science

The Effect of Transparency on Unsolvable Task Engagement in Domestic Cats (Felis catus) using Citizen Science | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Effect of Transparency on Unsolvable Task Engagement in Domestic Cats (Felis catus) using Citizen Science Jemma Forman, David Leavens This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Multiple species of animal are known to display different behaviours and have varying degrees of problem-solving task success when faced with transparent, semi-transparent or opaque versions of the same task. As such, transparency can affect how researchers interpret the limits of a species’ cognitive abilities or success on a task. We assessed how transparency may affect task engagement and social behaviours using the unsolvable task paradigm in domestic cats and their owners. We carried out a citizen science study that required cats to push over a non-magnetised (solvable) and magnetised (unsolvable) cup to reach an obscured food treat. All cats saw a transparent and opaque version of this cup. We assessed the effects of transparency and solvability on owner-directed and apparatus-directed behaviour displayed by the cat. We found significant differences in owner- and apparatus-directed gazing, as well as apparatus-directed touches, between transparent and opaque conditions. We also found an interaction effect between transparency and solvability for proximity with the owner, with cats being in proximity for longer durations with the owner in solvable, transparent conditions. No main effects of solvability were found on any recorded owner- or apparatus-directed behaviour. We discuss the implications of transparency on unsolvable task engagement, as well as the implementation of citizen science methods, particularly in cat research. domestic cat unsolvable task transparency social communication citizen science Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Full Text The use of transparency in experimental studies is important to consider when interpreting the cognitive abilities of animals (Chapuis, Thinus-Blanc & Poucet, 1983; Doré & Dumas, 1987; Goulet, Doré & Rousseau, 1994; Kabadayi, Bobrowicz & Osvath, 2018), as well as human infants (Lockman, 1984; Munakata, McClelland, Johnson & Siegler, 1997; Noland, 2008; Titzer, 1997). Animals may fail to demonstrate motor inhibition during detour tasks when using transparent barriers (Kabadayi, Bobrowicz & Osvath, 2018) or may take a longer route to reach a reward when transparent barriers are used (Chapuis, Thinus-Blanc & Poucet, 1983; Poucet, Thinus-Blanc & Chapuis, 1983). In object permanence tasks, animals often fail at invisible displacements due to a reward being moved invisibly in opaque containers or behind opaque walls (Doré, 1986; Doré & Dumas, 1987; Pasnak, Kurkjian & Triana, 1988). However, the performance of animals in invisible displacement tasks, under some circumstances, could improve when a transparent container is used (Goulet, Doré & Rousseau, 1994) or when transparent barriers are implemented in a species-appropriate manner (Dumas, 1992). Conversely, researchers have found that performance is often worse with transparent barriers, presumably because of visual and tactile discrepancies (Titzer, 1997), or that visual perception takes priority over higher cognitive function (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc & Chapuis, 1983), or for reasons related to motivational deficits when an opaque barrier is used (Munakata, McClelland, Johnson & Siegler, 1997), or a lack of experience or naivety with transparent barriers (Juszczak & Miller, 2016; Santos, Ericson & Hauser, 1999). There is large variation between studies on how transparency is implemented, for example, some barriers or containers are completely transparent (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc & Chapuis, 1983) versus semi-transparent (Juszczak & Miller, 2016; Szabo, Hoefer & Whiting, 2020), and some rewards are continuously visible (Bobrowicz & Osvath, 2018; Poucet, Thinus-Blanc & Chapuis, 1983; Pyari, Vékony, Uccheddu & Pongrácz, 2022) versus only initially visible (Dumas, 1992; Schiller, 1950). Transparent barriers or objects are artificial to most animals (Kabadayi, Bobrowicz & Osvath, 2018), with some companion animals such as domestic dogs ( Canis familiaris ) and domestic cats ( Felis catus ) likely having more exposure with transparent materials, due to being housed in family homes with transparent windows and furniture (Marquardt, 2015). The interaction between the type of experimental paradigm used and the type of transparency implemented may affect the conclusions we make about an animal’s cognitive ability (Dumas, 1992; Goulet, Doré & Rousseau, 1994; Jaakkola, 2014; Mulcahy & Call, 2009; Mulcahy & Hedge, 2012). Unsolvable tasks (also known as impossible tasks) comprise of a reward being placed in a location or container where the animal cannot independently reach the reward, and it can only be reached with the aid of the owner or caregiver (Mendes, Resende & Savalli, 2021a). Unsolvable tasks can be used to assess how animals use referential communication with their owner or caregiver in the form of gaze durations at a human, gaze alternations between apparatus and a human, latency to gaze at a human and looking back at the caregiver (Langbein, Krause & Nawroth, 2018; Mendes, Resende & Savalli, 2021a; Miklósi et al., 2005). Persistence can also be measured using physical touches with the task apparatus (Lazzaroni et al. 2019; Rao et al., 2018). There is lots of variation on how unsolvable tasks are administered, with some tasks requiring the animal to push a lid or pull a rope to reach a reward, which becomes unsolvable if the lid is sealed to a container (Zhang, Needham, Juma, Si & Martin, 2021) or the pulling mechanism is fixed and immobile (Miklósi et al., 2003; Smith & Litchfield, 2013). Unsolvable tasks have no standard transparency, with some studies using opaque containers (Miklósi et al., 2005) and some studies using transparent containers (Lazzaroni et al., 2019; Marshall-Pescini, Colombo, Passalacqua, Merola & Prato-Previde, 2013; Pérez Fraga, Gerencsér, Lovas, Újváry, & Andics, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). An experimental manipulation of container transparency on animal behaviour in unsolvable tasks is yet to be explored. Dogs are generally highly communicative with humans during unsolvable tasks by showing increased gazing durations at a human, more gaze alternations between the apparatus and human and have a decreased latency to look at a human (Marshall-Pescini et al., 2013; Miklósi et al., 2003; Miklósi et al., 2005). There are differences in gazing behaviours depending on the dogs’ life experiences and training; pet dogs look for longer towards their owner and show more gaze alternation with their owners in comparison to free-ranging dogs (Lazzaroni et al., 2020) and shelter dogs (Gould et al., 2022; Mendes, Resende, & Savalli, 2021b). Conversely, dogs who participate in animal-assisted interventions and dogs trained for agility competitions have longer gazing durations and more frequent gaze alternations than pet dogs during unsolvable tasks (Cavalli, Carballo, Dzik & Bentosela, 2019; Marshall-Pescini, Passalacqua, Barnard, Valsecchi & Prato-Previde, 2009). The behaviour of ‘looking back’ towards a human and persistence with an unsolvable task may have different purposes depending on the life experience of the dog (Lazzaroni et al., 2019; Lazzaroni et al., 2020), as well as different uses in non-domestic canids (Smith & Litchfield, 2013). Additionally, socialised wolves are more inclined to use apparatus-directed behaviours over human-directed behaviours than are dogs (Miklósi et al., 2003; Rao et al., 2018). It should be noted that non-domestic animals are also capable of using referential communication during unsolvable tasks (McElligott, O'Keeffe & Green, 2020; Mendes, Resende & Savalli, 2021a; Ringhofer & Yamamoto, 2017; Yoshida & Koda, 2020), although not to the same extent as dogs (Pérez Fraga et al., 2021). Cats predominantly communicate with their owner or caregiver using gazing behaviours, as opposed to physical contact, during unsolvable tasks (Miklósi et al., 2005; Scandurra, Di Lucrezia, D’Aniello & Pinelli, 2023; Zhang et al., 2021). Cats display fewer gaze alternations between hidden food and a human in comparison to dogs during unsolvable tasks (Miklósi et al., 2005). On the other hand, cats display more apparatus-directed touches in both solvable and unsolvable tasks (Miklósi et al., 2005; Scandurra et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2021). This focus on the apparatus is likely a reflection of the distinct domestication processes of cats and dogs, of which cats have had a more self-selective domestication history than that of dogs (Driscoll, Macdonald & O’Brien, 2009). Cats are solitary animals and, in comparison to free-ranging dogs who often congregate in social groups, would not have needed to develop such overt or complex social behaviours with conspecifics or with humans (Driscoll, Macdonald & O’Brien, 2009; Marshall-Pescini & Kaminski, 2014). During unsolvable tasks, cats behave more similarly to socialised wolves than pet dogs in that cats display more apparatus-directed behaviours (Miklósi et al., 2003; Miklósi et al., 2005). Furthermore, other lifestyle factors such as age and outdoor access can influence unsolvable task engagement in cats, with older cats have shorter durations of apparatus-directed touches (but longer durations of apparatus-directed gazing) and indoor cats having longer durations of apparatus-directed touches (Scandurra et al., 2023). Present study The transparency of a barrier or container may be either a help or a hindrance for a cat’s performance at an experimental task. Although the effect of transparency on task success has been investigated in cats in other problem-solving experimental studies (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc & Chapuis, 1983; Goulet, Doré & Rousseau, 1994), transparency is yet to be experimentally manipulated in conjunction with unsolvable tasks. Previous studies investigating cat behaviour during unsolvable tasks used either opaque (Miklósi et al., 2005) or transparent containers (Scandurra et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2021) and assessed how cats may differentially communicate with their owner or caregiver based on task solvability. We aimed to expand on these previous studies and investigate how the effect of transparency may affect the owner- and apparatus-directed behaviour displayed during solvable and unsolvable tasks in cats. We achieved this by analysing the behaviour of cats in their home environment using citizen science methods and a species-engaging task of pushing over a non-magnetised (solvable) or magnetised (unsolvable) cup. We expected cats to have longer durations of gazing at, physically touching and being in proximity with the apparatus when the task is solvable using a transparent cup (visible reward). Additionally, we expected cats to have longer durations of gazing at, touching and being in proximity with the owner when the task is unsolvable using an opaque cup (hidden reward). Methods Subjects Owners in the United Kingdom were recruited over a period of nine months (April - December 2021) via online social media advertisements and snowball sampling. Thirty-eight owners registered an interest in this study. Twenty-eight owners completed the online survey and were posted the materials to complete the study. Sixteen owners with 23 cats uploaded video recordings. One cat was excluded due to lack of interaction with the cup during exposure trials and did not continue to the experimental trials. One other cat was excluded for completing only three out of the four experimental trials. Thus, a total of 21 cats from 15 households were used in the analysis, consisting of 10 females ( M age = 3.77 years, SD age = 2.88 years) and 12 males ( M age = 7.90 years, SD age = 3.79 years). The average duration that cats lived in the household was 3.84 years ( SD = 3.95 years). Fourteen cats lived in multi-cat households and 7 cats lived in single-cat households. All but one female cat was neutered. Eleven cats were indoor-only and 10 cats had indoor-outdoor access. Eighteen cats had female owners and 3 cats had male owners ( M age = 34.62 years, SD age = 6.12 years). There were no other pets present in any household. Procedure The study was carried out remotely amid lockdown restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic, with the owners completing the study in their own homes without the physical presence of a researcher. Owners were first asked to complete an online questionnaire that was created using Qualtrics ( www.qualtrics.com ). Owners were required to read through an information page outlining the study objectives, a consent page to read and electronically sign a cat stress awareness page that highlighted specific behaviours to be mindful of during the trials, for example hissing or growling. Owners were then asked a series of demographic questions regarding their cat’s age, sex, neuter status, outside access and length of time living in the current household. Owners were also asked a series of household demographic questions including their gender, age and the number of people in the household. Owners could then access videos that the researcher provided that demonstrated the correct positioning of the camera frame and examples of how to carry out all of the trials involving their cat. Study packs were posted to owners’ homes upon completion of the online questionnaire. Each participating household received one study pack that contained all of the following materials: a printed copy of the information page, consent form and cat stress awareness page; a printed instruction booklet (Supplementary Information 1); three cups and a circular aluminium tray (see Fig. 1); eight small round disc magnets; sticky tack; a lightweight, flexible foam tripod; and a stopwatch. Owners were free to use a food treat of their choice as the reward for their cat. The tray acted as a base for the cups. The researcher had placed eight small white circular stickers (8 mm) around the centre point of the underside of the tray to indicate to the owner where the eight magnets should be placed during the unsolvable trials. One sticker was placed in the centre on the topside of the tray to indicate where owners should position the cup during all the trials. The underside stickers were measured so they lined up with the magnetic wire rim of the cups when placed on the centre sticker on the topside of the tray. Cats only saw the topside of the tray during all trials. There were three types of trial days – exposure days, solvable days and unsolvable days. Three trials per day were carried out over a total of four or five consecutive days, depending on the number of completed exposure days. The task apparatus was positioned approximately 40 cm (two tray lengths) away from the owner’s sitting position. For all day types, one food treat was first placed on top of the tray without the presence of a cup to encourage cats to interact with the apparatus and motivate them for the upcoming three trials. After the initial food treat was consumed by the cat, the owner would individually cover a second, third and fourth treat with the relevant cup and the cat would be required to push the cup off the tray to reach the obscured treat. The owner would hold the treat up, visible to the cat, and simultaneously call the cat’s name to encourage the cat to look at the treat before placing the treat under the cup. In solvable trials, the cup can move freely on the tray. In unsolvable trials, the cup is magnetised to the tray. From the cat’s perspective, the apparatus looked visually the same in both solvable and unsolvable trials. Owners would firstly carry out exposure trials using only the mesh cup (Supplementary Information 2). The purpose of the exposure trials was to familiarise the cat with the task of pushing over the cups to reach a treat. All cats had a minimum of two exposure days and were permitted a third exposure day if the cat did not independently push over the cup and consume the treat in all three trials by the end of the second exposure day. One cat had an additional fourth exposure day as they had only one trial for the second exposure day. The mesh cup provided both visual and olfactory cues. After the exposure trials were completed, owners would continue to the experimental trials of either the solvable (Supplementary Information 3) or unsolvable trials (Supplementary Information 4) on the following day. Solvability was pseudo-randomised across subjects (12 cats saw solvable trials first and 9 cats saw unsolvable trials first). These experimental trials would use all three cups (mesh, transparent and opaque) only once. The mesh cup was always used first in these trials, with the transparency of the cup being randomised across the second and third trials. Owners would then proceed with the remaining condition (either solvable or unsolvable) on the next day following the same procedure. For unsolvable trials, owners would place the magnets on the stickers underneath the tray before the trials started for that day. All three cup types (mesh, transparent and opaque) were magnetised to the tray during the unsolvable trials. The presentation of transparency was also pseudo-randomised across four different combinations (7 opaque-transparent, opaque-transparent; 5 opaque-transparent, transparent-opaque; 7 transparent-opaque, opaque-transparent; 2 transparent-opaque, transparent-opaque). The opaque and transparent cups were made of solid acrylic. All trials ended once the cat had pushed over the cup and consumed the treat that was previously obstructed or until 45 s had elapsed. A short break was permitted between each trial (5 s). All cats were given the opportunity to consume the treat after every trial regardless of success. Owners were informed to keep the materials out of reach and sight of the cat unless they were preparing for or carrying out the trials. After completing all the trials, owners anonymously uploaded their video recordings to the online file hosting website Dropbox ( https://www.dropbox.com/ ). Behaviour coding All behavioural coding was carried out using BORIS (Version 7.12.2, Friard & Gamba, 2016). Our coding scheme (Table 1) used similar behavioural definitions from other studies on domestic animals and unsolvable tasks (Miklósi et al., 2005; Pérez Fraga et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). Total durations of gazing at and being in proximity with the owner and apparatus were coded. One-zero sampling (Altmann, 1974) was used to code for behaviours that were expected to occur very briefly or in quick succession (physical contact with apparatus, physical contact with owner, meows, purrs). The observation interval started as soon as the owner placed the cup on the tray and ended once the cat consumed the previously obstructed treat or until 45 s had elapsed, whichever came first. Table 1. Coding scheme of owner- and apparatus-directed behaviours and vocalisations displayed by the cat during solvable and unsolvable tasks. Behaviour Description Owner-directed behaviour Gaze at owner Duration total duration of time the cat gazes at any part of the owner’s body, including the torso, hands or face Latency time elapsed since the start of the observation interval until the first gaze towards the owner Proximity with owner Duration total duration of time that any part of the cat (e.g., paw, head, tail) is within approximately 20 cm (one tray length) of the owner’s body Proximity-seeking behavior with owner Duration total duration of time the cat actively moves towards the owner Physical contact with owner Duration total duration of time the cat makes physical contact with the owner using any part of the body (e.g., paw, head, tail, flank) Apparatus-directed behaviour Gaze at apparatus Duration Total duration of time the cat looks at any part of the task apparatus, including the cup or the tray, that are being used in the current trial. Proximity with apparatus Duration total duration of time that any part of the cat (e.g., paw, head, tail) is within approximately 20 cm (one tray length) of the edge of the tray Physical contact with apparatus Duration total duration of time the cat makes physical contact with the cup or the tray using any part of the body (e.g., paw, head, tail). Sound cues were used to identify physical contact with the apparatus where the camera view was blocked (e.g., when cat was scratching at or pushing the cup) Gaze alternations between owner and apparatus Frequency one gaze alternation is a direct saccade between a fixated gaze at the owner and a fixated gaze at the apparatus (or vice versa) Latency time elapsed from the start of the trial until the second saccade of the first gaze alternation Vocalisations Meow Duration total duration of the cat ‘meow/miaow’ Purr Duration total duration of the cat purr All videos were coded by one main coder (JF) and 45 trials were coded by a secondary coder. There was almost perfect agreement for vocalisations (Cohen’s Kappa: meow κ = .96, purr κ = .97). There was modest agreement for physical contact with apparatus (Cohen’s Kappa, κ = .54) and moderate agreement for physical contact with owner (Cohen’s Kappa, κ = .75) (McHugh, 2012). There was poor correlation for latency to first gaze alternation (ICC = .38) and moderate correlations for gaze at apparatus (ICC = .71), gaze at owner (ICC = .72), latency to gaze at owner (ICC = .70) and proximity-seeking behaviour with the owner (ICC = .70). There was good correlation for proximity with apparatus (ICC = .76) and excellent correlation for proximity with owner (ICC = .91) (Koo & Li, 2016). There was a weak correlation between the two raters for the frequency of gaze alternations (Spearman’s rho, r = .34) (Schober, Boer & Schwarte, 2018). The coding carried out by the primary coder was used in subsequent analyses. Data analysis A total of 104 videos were received from owners. One owner had repeated the procedure with their cat at a later date due to the tray being moved a few centimetres in one trial by the cat themselves, which could have been potentially incentivising. However, the cat displayed consistent behaviours across trial type and transparency, regardless of whether the tray was movable, therefore we analysed the first time the cat went through the procedure, leaving 101 videos for subsequent analysis. These videos were separated into 284 trials (Table 2). There were a total of 84 experimental trials using an equal combination of solvability (solvable; unsolvable) and transparency (transparent; opaque) conditions. Table 2. Total number of trials per condition (exposure, solvable and unsolvable trials) and transparency (mesh, transparent, opaque) ( N cats = 21). Note the mesh cups were used only in exposure trials and as the first trial on solvable and unsolvable days. Trial type Transparency Frequency Exposure Mesh 157 Solvable Mesh 22 Solvable Opaque 21 Solvable Transparent 21 Unsolvable Mesh 21 Unsolvable Opaque 21 Unsolvable Transparent 21 Six cats did not complete the criterion of pushing over the cup independently in all three trials by the end of exposure day three. Three cats pushed over at least two out of three cups and two cats pushed over at least on cup. One cat did not push over any cups by the end of exposure day three; this same cat also did not push over any cups by the end of exposure day two but did push over two out of three cups independently on exposure day one. This cat seemed to prefer to interact more with their owner than the apparatus and did not show any signs of stress that would have warranted cessation of the experiment. Although the criterion by the end of day two was to push over all the cups, this was to only determine whether the cats could have an extra exposure day. We therefore elected to retain all cats that pushed over the cup independently at least once overall for statistical analysis. All analyses were carried out in R (Version 2022.07.2) using the DescTools, emmeans, EnvStats, ggpubr, irr, qqplotr, rstatix, sjstats and tidyverse packages. R code is available in Supplementary Information 5 and the dataset is available in Supplementary Information 6. The total durations of gazing at apparatus, gazing at owner, proximity with apparatus, proximity with owner, physical contact with apparatus and physical contact with owner were converted into proportions of observation time (behaviour / observation interval) to account for the different trial durations across experimental conditions. Tests of assumptions of normality were carried out using the Shapiro-Wilk test and residuals were visualised using QQ plots and histograms. Extreme outliers ( data points that were more than 3 times the interquartile range above the third quartile or below the first quartile ) were also identified. Residuals were normally distributed for the observed proportion of gazing at apparatus. Residuals were right-skewed for observed proportion of gazing at owner and observed proportion of physical contact and residuals were left-skewed for observed proportion of proximity with apparatus. Variables with skewness were transformed using arcsine square root transformations, suitable for data representing a proportion. Normality was re-assessed after these variables were transformed with slight improvement in normality. Observed proportion of proximity with the owner had a multimodal distribution and so no transformation was carried out on this dependent variable. Comparisons were made between the analyses of non-transformed and transformed data; the interpretation did not differ between the non-transformed and transformed data and so the results of the non-transformed analyses are reported in Results. The results of the non-transformed analyses should be interpreted carefully and taken into consideration that the data are not normally distributed. One dependent variable, observed proportion of physical contact with owner, had so few occurrences ( n = 9) that all of these data points were identified as extreme outliers. Therefore, no statistical analyses were carried out for the observed proportion of physical contact with the owner. Two-way (2 x 2) repeated-measures ANOVAs were used for the dependent variables of: observed proportion of gazing at apparatus, observed proportion of gazing at owner, observed proportion of physical contact with the apparatus, observed proportion of proximity with apparatus and observed proportion of proximity with owner. Transparency (transparent/opaque) and trial type (solvable/unsolvable) were the predictors in all ANOVAs with cat ID as a random effect. Pearson’s correlations were used to assess correlations between cat age and observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus, observed proportion of gazing at the owner and the observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequency counts for number of successful solvable trials based on transparency, whether a cat has outdoor access and whether cats saw the solvable or unsolvable days first. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats in the observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus. Results Eleven cats had two exposure days, 9 cats had three exposure days and 1 cat had four exposure days. Median latencies to task success, first gaze at the owner and first gaze alternation for exposure and experimental trials are presented in Table 3 . All 21 cats gazed at the apparatus across 145 exposure trials. Sixteen cats gazed at the owner across 52 exposure trials. Seven cats showed at least one gaze alternation in 12 exposure trials. Two of these cats alternated their gaze more than once between the apparatus and their owner; one cat alternated twice and one cat alternated 5 times. All cats were in proximity with the apparatus across 152 exposure trials. Twenty cats were in proximity with the owner at least once across 66 exposure trials. All cats touched the apparatus in at least three separate exposure trials. Three cats made physical contact with the owner in three separate exposure trials. There were few vocalisations made by cats in exposure trials; two cats meowed in three trials total and two different cats purred in three trials total. Table 3 Median latencies with ranges of task success, first gaze at owner and first gaze alternation per condition (exposure, solvable and unsolvable) and transparency (transparent, opaque). Number of trials in which cats displayed these behaviours in each condition are also presented. No cats were successful in unsolvable, opaque conditions. Trial type Transparency Median latency to task success (s) Median latency to first gaze at owner (s) Median latency to first gaze alternation (s) Exposure Mesh 11.96 ( n = 119) (3.33–45.00) 5.27 ( n = 51) (0–36.02) 4.48 ( n = 12) (2.72–24.49) Solvable Opaque 29.86 ( n = 3) (20.18–36.34) 9.60 (n = 18) (0.72–34.76) 6.72 ( n = 9) (2.22–40.26) Solvable Transparent 10.41 ( n = 14) (5.05–43.11) 14.51 ( n = 7) (2.24–30.75) 22.11 ( n = 2) (21.02–23. 21) Unsolvable Opaque NA 10.48 ( n = 15) (0.94–43.77) 4.72 ( n = 7) (1.48–29.19) Unsolvable Transparent 11.96 ( n = 4) (8.36–45.00) 11.23 ( n = 15) (3.74–42.50) 22.52 ( n = 2) (6.50–38.54) Twelve cats saw the solvable trials first and 9 cats saw the unsolvable trials first. Fourteen cats successfully solved the task in pushing over the cup in 17/42 solvable trials (3 opaque, 14 transparent). There was a significantly higher number of successes in the solvable trials when the cat was first given the solvable day ( n = 13) in comparison to the unsolvable day ( n = 4) ( X 2 (1) = 4.76, p = .029). There was a significantly higher number of successes in the solvable trials when a transparent cup was used ( n = 14) in comparison to when an opaque cup was used ( n = 3) ( X 2 (1) = 7.12, p = .007). There was not a significance difference in the number of successes in the solvable trials between indoor cats ( n = 9) or indoor-outdoor cats ( n = 8) ( X 2 (1) = .06, p = .808). Four cats knocked over the transparent cups in unsolvable trials within the observation interval of 45 s. Two of these cats pushed over the mesh cups in one unsolvable trial each outside of the observation interval. Three different cats knocked over the mesh cup in unsolvable trials within the observation interval. The cup was successfully magnetised to the tray in all of these trials and the cats were persistent and forceful in using their paws to push or pull the cup. One cat primarily used their head to push the cup. All cats gazed at the apparatus in all experimental trials where gaze direction could be determined (one cat’s head was not in camera view during one trial). Cat age and the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus were not significantly correlated (Pearson’s correlation r (82) = − .20, p = .064). Eighteen cats gazed at the owner in 25 solvable trials (18 opaque, 7 transparent). Nineteen cats gazed at the owner in 30 unsolvable trials (15 opaque, 15 transparent). Ten cats gaze-alternated across 11 solvable trials (nine opaque, two transparent). One cat gaze-alternated in both solvable trials. Nine cats gaze-alternated across 9 unsolvable trials (seven opaque, two transparent). No cat demonstrated gaze alternation more than once in the experimental trials. Cat age and the observed proportion of gazing at the owner were significantly correlated (Pearson’s correlation r (82) = .62, p < .001) with older cats displaying longer durations of gazing at their owner than younger cats. All 21 cats were in proximity with the apparatus across all solvability and transparency conditions. Seventeen cats were in proximity with the owner across 23 solvable trials (16 opaque, 7 transparent). Seventeen cats were in proximity with the owner across 31 unsolvable trials (14 opaque, 17 transparent). Eighteen cats touched the cup in 49 experimental trials. Sixteen cats touched the apparatus across 27 solvable trials (11 opaque, 16 transparent. Sixteen cats touched the apparatus across 22 unsolvable trials (6 opaque, 16 transparent). Even when touching the apparatus at least once, 10 cats in 10 trials did not solve the task in solvable conditions (8 opaque, 2 transparent). There was a significant correlation between cat age and the observed proportion of touch with the apparatus (Pearson’s correlation r (82) = -3.09, p = .002) with older cats spending less time in contact with the apparatus than younger cats. There were no significant differences between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats on the observed proportion of touch with the apparatus (Mann-Whitney Z = − .05, p = .959). Five cats made physical contact with their owner across 6 solvable trials (four opaque, two transparent) and 3 unsolvable trials (one opaque, two transparent). Six of these contacts with the owner were made in the same multi-cat household; one cat made contact in all four experimental trials and the second cat made contact in two experimental trials (one solvable-opaque and one unsolvable-transparent). There was a low frequency of vocalisations across all experimental trials; two cats purred in two solvable-opaque trials and two cats meowed in three solvable trials (two opaque and one transparent). Transparency A summary of the effect of transparency on the observed proportions of apparatus- and owner-directed behaviours is illustrated in Fig. 2 . There was a significant effect of transparency on the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus (F 1,20 = 13.48, p = .002), observed proportion of gazing at the owner (F 1,20 = 4.55, p = .045 and observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus (F 1,20 = 24.29, p < .001). There were longer durations of gazing at and physical touches with the apparatus in transparent cup conditions than in the opaque cup conditions. Conversely, there were longer durations of gazing at the owner in opaque cup conditions than in the transparent cup conditions. There were no significant effects of transparency on the observed proportion of proximity with the apparatus (F 1,20 = 0.88, p = .360) or the observed proportion of proximity with the owner (F 1,20 = 2.73, p = .114). Solvability There were no significant main effects on solvability for any owner- or apparatus-directed behaviours. There was not a significant effect of trial type on the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus (F 1,20 = 0.42, p = .522), observed proportion of gazing at the owner (F 1,20 = 2.02, p = .171), observed proportion of proximity with the apparatus (F 1,20 = 2.57, p = .124), observed proportion of proximity with the owner (F 1,20 = 0.72, p = .408) or the observed proportion of physical touch with apparatus (F 1,20 = 0.12, p = .728). However, there was a significant interaction effect between transparency and trial type on observed proportion of proximity with owner (F 1,20 = 5.51, p = .029). The highest observed proportion of proximity with the owner was in the solvable, opaque cup condition and the lowest observed proportion of proximity with the owner was in the solvable, transparent cup condition (Fig. 3 ). Discussion Cats had significantly more apparatus-directed touches when the cup was transparent versus opaque. A greater number of cats were successful at pushing over the solvable, transparent cup versus the solvable, opaque cup. These differences in physical touches with the apparatus are unlikely to be the result of a cat failing to remember the existence of the treat; cats are still able to locate a hidden object at a level higher than chance with delays of up to 60 seconds but this rapidly declines 30 seconds after the object’s disappearance (Cowan, 1923 ; Fiset & Doré, 2006 ; Goulet, Doré & Lehotkay, 1996 ; Meyers, McQuiston & Miles, 1962 ; Yarbrough, 1917 ). As our trials were 45 seconds, it is likely that cats remained aware of the existence of the temporarily obscured treat. Additionally, cats were provided a highly salient reward that was selected by the owner which should have further incentivised cats to push both the transparent and opaque cup over (Triana & Pasnak, 1981). However, the cats in our current study always had an opportunity to consume the treat from underneath the cup regardless of their success at the task, with their owner lifting the cup for them. As they previously had multiple exposure days using mesh cups, the cats may have learned they would be able to consume the treat even if they did not push the cups over themselves (extinction effect). Additionally, as cats prefer not to work harder for a reward if there is an easier way to reach an equivalent reward (Delgado, Han & Bain, 2022 ), this would mean cats may have preferred to wait for their owner to lift the cup than touch the apparatus themselves. This effect may be exaggerated when an opaque cup (hidden treat) is used, where there is no constant visual feedback of the treat’s existence. Cats overall displayed more apparatus-directed behaviours and relatively fewer owner-directed behaviours of touch, proximity and gazing. Instead, cats were more persistent with the task apparatus and displayed fewer owner-directed behaviours, behaving more similarly to socialised wolves than, say, domestic dogs (Miklósi et al., 2003 ). Our original hypothesis was that there would be more owner-directed behaviours in unsolvable, opaque conditions, however there were very few instances of owner-directed touches across both the opaque and transparent conditions and cats were instead more persistent with the task apparatus than with their owners, which is comparable with what previous studies have reported (Miklósi et al., 2005 ; Scandurra et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ). The only owner-directed behaviour that significantly differed between transparencies was the observed proportion of gazing duration towards the owner, with cats gazing for longer durations in opaque cup conditions. It should be highlighted that overall duration of gazing towards owners was still relatively short. Out of the cats who gazed at their owners, cats often gazed at their owner shortly after they placed the cup down and most cats had a short latency to their first gaze alternation between the task apparatus and the owner (see Table 3 ). Older cats also had a longer duration of owner-directed gazing than did younger cats, a trend also found in dogs (Passalacqua et al., (2011). Although we did not record whether owners regularly fed their cats treats, cats would likely have a strongly reinforced previous association between the owner and food in general (Lazzaroni et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the longer duration of gazing at the owner is likely the result of a long-standing association between the owner and food rather than an explicit problem-solving behaviour, which is further exaggerated when an opaque cup is used to obscure a treat. We also found that lifestyle factors of cat age and outdoor access had an impact on solvable task success and overall apparatus-directed behaviours. We found that older cats had shorter durations of apparatus-directed touches, a similar finding to that of previous studies (Scandurra et al., 2023 ). However, we also found that older cats had shorter durations of apparatus-directed gazing, whereas previous studies had found that older cats had longer durations of apparatus-directed gazing (Scandurra et al., 2023 ). Other studies also reported that older cats approached the apparatus more frequently than younger cats (Zhang et al., 2021 ). Additionally, we found no difference in solvable task success between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats. We also found no differences in overall observed proportion of touch between indoor-only or indoor-outdoor cats. Previous studies found that indoor cats engaged with an unsolvable task for longer durations than indoor-outdoor cats (Scandurra et al., 2023 ). There were no differences between transparent and opaque conditions for the total durations of owner- or apparatus-directed proximity. However, the task apparatus was positioned approximately 40 cm away from the owner and some cats sat or stood between the apparatus and the owner in this space. Despite this, there was an interaction effect in the proximity with the owner between solvability and transparency; when the task was solvable and used a transparent cup, cats were significantly less likely to be in proximity with the owner. When the task was unsolvable and used an opaque cup, cats were significantly more likely to be in proximity with the owner, which supports our original hypothesis. Our study successfully implemented a citizen science methodology using a species-friendly task for cats. Citizen science methods have also been successful in previous studies on cat cognition, albeit with a relatively large loss from the initial pool of participants (Smith, Chouinard & Byosiere, 2021 ; Smith et al., 2022 ; Fukimoto, Albuquerque & Savalli, 2023 ). We similarly had a large decrease in participants from the initial pool of 38 owners to a final sample of 15 owners. Nonetheless, relative to other research methods, fewer cats in our study were excluded for stress-related reasons, for example, from the process of being moved to a novel testing environment (Zhang et al., 2021 ), highlighting a substantial advantage to in-home testing protocols. Out of the owners who sent their videos, only one cat was excluded in our sample who seemed to be uninterested in the task apparatus (one other cat was also excluded but only because their owner did not carry out all trials, not because of apparent disinterest). We encourage the implementation of citizen science methods, or synchronous citizen science methods (Fukimoto, Albuquerque & Savalli, 2023 ), to investigate the extent to which these methods may encourage task engagement, particularly for house cats who are particularly neophobic and highly sensitive to changes in their environment (Bradshaw, Goodwin, Legrand-Defretin & Nott, 1996 ). Overall, our study highlights how transparency can interfere with how cats may physically approach an unsolvable task. As there were no main effects of solvability across both owner- and apparatus-directed behaviours, this demonstrates that transparency interferes with whether a cat will initiate apparatus-directed touches. It appears that using a transparent container and a species-friendly methodology encourages cats to engage with the task apparatus, with cats interacting with the task more persistently and also gazing at the apparatus for longer durations. Conversely, using opaque containers encourages cats to gaze at their owners for longer durations, regardless of whether the task was solvable or unsolvable. Alternative explanations about task persistence and the social behaviours of cats may have been concluded if only using either transparent or opaque containers. In future studies, it should be made certain that the subject understands when a task is solvable or unsolvable (for example, by physically touching the apparatus) in order to appropriately interpret the referential behaviours the subject displays, and that transparency of apparatus may interfere with how a subject interacts with the apparatus. Declarations Acknowledgements We would like to thank Jordan Rowe for acting as a second coder for this study. We would also like to thank all of the owners and their cats who took the time to participate in this study. Ethical Approval Approval was obtained by the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body at the University of Sussex (reference: ARG-24). The procedures used in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution guidelines. Data Availability All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files). Author Contributions Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JF. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JF and both authors commented on previous version of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript. Competing Interests David Leavens is an Editorial Board Member of Animal Cognition and receives no financial compensation for this submission. Funding No specific funding was received for conducting this study, but JF and DL were supported by the School of Psychology, University of Sussex. References Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, 49 (3–4), 227–266. Bobrowicz, K., & Osvath, M. (2018). Cats parallel great apes and corvids in motor self-regulation–not brain but material size matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 1995. Bradshaw, J. W., Goodwin, D., Legrand-Defretin, V., & Nott, H. M. (1996). Food selection by the domestic cat, an obligate carnivore. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology, 114 (3), 205–209. Cavalli, C., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., & Bentosela, M. (2020). Gazing as a help requesting behavior: a comparison of dogs participating in animal-assisted interventions and pet dogs. Animal Cognition, 23 , 141–147. Chapuis, N., Thinus-Blanc, C., & Poucet, B. (1983). Dissociation of mechanisms involved in dogs’ oriented displacements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 35 (3b), 213–219. Cowan, E. A. (1923). An experiment testing the ability of a cat to make delayed response and to maintain a given response toward a varying stimulus. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 3 (1), 1. Delgado, M. M., Han, B. S. G., & Bain, M. J. (2022). Domestic cats ( Felis catus ) prefer freely available food over food that requires effort. Animal cognition, 25 (1), 95–102. Dore, F. Y. (1986). Object permanence in adult cats ( Felis catus ). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100 (4), 340. Doré, F. Y., & Dumas, C. (1987). Psychology of animal cognition: Piagetian studies. Psychological Bulletin, 102 (2), 219. Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W., & O'Brien, S. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (supplement_1), 9971–9978. Dumas, C. (1992). Object permanence in cats ( Felis catus ): An ecological approach to the study of invisible displacements. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 106 (4), 404. Fiset, S., & Doré, F. Y. (2006). Duration of cats' ( Felis catus ) working memory for disappearing objects. Animal cognition, 9 , 62–70. Friard, O., & Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event‐logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in ecology and evolution, 7 (11), 1325–1330. Fukimoto, N., Albuquerque, N., & Savalli, C. (2023). Synchronous citizen science: A new method for cat behavior research. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 62 , 18–21. Gould, K., Iversen, P., Sikkink, S., Rem, R., & Templeton, J. (2022). Persistence and gazing at humans during an unsolvable task in dogs: The influence of ownership duration, living situation, and prior experience with humans. Behavioural Processes, 201 , 104710. Goulet, S., Doré, F. Y., & Lehotkay, R. (1996). Activation of locations in working memory in cats. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 49 (1b), 81–92. Goulet, S., Doré, F. Y., & Rousseau, R. (1994). Object permanence and working memory in cats (Felis catus). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20 (4), 347. Jaakkola, K. (2014). Do animals understand invisible displacement? A critical review. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 128 (3), 225. Juszczak, G. R., & Miller, M. (2016). Detour behavior of mice trained with transparent, semitransparent and opaque barriers. PloS one, 11 (9), e0162018. Kabadayi, C., Bobrowicz, K., & Osvath, M. (2018). The detour paradigm in animal cognition. Animal cognition, 21 , 21–35. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15 (2), 155–163. Langbein, J., Krause, A., & Nawroth, C. (2018). Human-directed behaviour in goats is not affected by short-term positive handling. Animal cognition, 21 , 795–803. Lazzaroni, M., Marshall-Pescini, S., Manzenreiter, H., Gosch, S., Přibilová, L., Darc, L., McGetrick, J., & Range, F. (2020). Why do dogs look back at the human in an impossible task? Looking back behaviour may be over-interpreted. Animal Cognition, 23 (3), 427–441. Lazzaroni, M., Range, F., Bernasconi, L., Darc, L., Holtsch, M., Massimei, R., Rao, A., & Marshall-Pescini, S. (2019). The role of life experience in affecting persistence: A comparative study between free-ranging dogs, pet dogs and captive pack dogs. PLoS One, 14 (4), e0214806. Lockman, J. J. (1984). The development of detour ability during infancy. Child Development, 482–491. Marshall-Pescini, S., Colombo, E., Passalacqua, C., Merola, I., & Prato-Previde, E. (2013). Gaze alternation in dogs and toddlers in an unsolvable task: evidence of an audience effect. Animal cognition, 16 , 933–943. Marshall-Pescini, S., & Kaminski, J. (2014). The social dog: history and evolution. In The Social Dog (pp. 3–33). Academic Press. Marshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Barnard, S., Valsecchi, P., & Prato-Previde, E. (2009). Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs’ behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behavioural processes, 81 (3), 416–422. Marquardt, G., Cross, E. S., De Sousa, A. A., Edelstein, E., Farnè, A., Leszczynski, M., Patterson, M., & Quadflieg, S. (2015). There or not there? A multidisciplinary review and research agenda on the impact of transparent barriers on human perception, action, and social behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 , 1381. McElligott, A. G., O'Keeffe, K. H., & Green, A. C. (2020). Kangaroos display gazing and gaze alternations during an unsolvable problem task. Biology Letters, 16 (12), 20200607. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, 22 (3), 276–282. Mendes, J. W. W., Resende, B., & Savalli, C. (2021a). A review of the unsolvable task in dog communication and cognition: comparing different methodologies. Animal Cognition, 24 (5), 907–922. Mendes, J. W. W., Resende, B., & Savalli, C. (2021b). Effect of different experiences with humans in dogs’ visual communication. Behavioural Processes, 192 , 104487. Meyers, W. J., McQuiston, M. D., & Miles, R. C. (1962). Delayed-response and learning-set performance of cats. Journal of comparative and physiological Psychology, 55 ( 4 ), 515. Miklósi, Á., Kubinyi, E., Topál, J., Gácsi, M., Virányi, Z., & Csányi, V. (2003). A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Current biology, 13 (9), 763–766. Miklósi, Á., Pongrácz, P., Lakatos, G., Topál, J., & Csányi, V. (2005). A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs ( Canis familiaris ) and humans and cats ( Felis catus ) and humans. Journal of comparative psychology, 119 (2), 179. Mulcahy, N. J., & Call, J. (2009). The performance of bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in two versions of an object-choice task. Journal of comparative psychology, 123 (3), 304. Mulcahy, N. J., & Hedge, V. (2012). Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task?. Animal Behaviour, 83 (2), 313–321. Munakata, Y., McClelland, J. L., Johnson, M. H., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological review, 104 (4), 686. Noland, J. S. (2008). Executive functioning demands of the object retrieval task for 8-month-old infants. Child Neuropsychology, 14 (6), 504–509. Pasnak, R., Kurkjian, M., & Triana, E. (1988). Assessment of Stage 6 object permanence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26 (4), 368–370. Pérez Fraga, P., Gerencsér, L., Lovas, M., Újváry, D., & Andics, A. (2021). Who turns to the human? Companion pigs’ and dogs’ behaviour in the unsolvable task paradigm. Animal Cognition, 24 , 33–40. Poucet, B., Thinus-Blanc, C., & Chapuis, N. (1983). Route planning in cats, in relation to the visibility of the goal. Animal Behaviour, 31 (2), 594–599. Pyari, M. S, Vékony, K., Uccheddu, S., & Pongrácz, P. (2022). Companion cats show no effect of trial-and-error learning compared to dogs in a transparent-obstacle detour task. Animals, 13 (1), 32. Rao, A., Bernasconi, L., Lazzaroni, M., Marshall-Pescini, S., & Range, F. (2018). Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans. PeerJ, 6, e5944. Ringhofer, M., & Yamamoto, S. (2017). Domestic horses send signals to humans when they face with an unsolvable task. Animal cognition, 20 (3), 397–405. Rummel, R. J. (1988). Applied factor analysis . Northwestern University Press. Santos, L. R., Ericson, B. N., & Hauser, M. D. (1999). Constraints on problem solving and inhibition: Object retrieval in cotton-top tamarins ( Saguinus oedipus oedipus ). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113 (2), 186. Scandurra, A., Di Lucrezia, A., D’Aniello, B., & Pinelli, C. (2023). Home Sweet Home: The Impact of Lifestyle on a Cat’s Approach to Impossible Tasks in the Home Environment. Animals, 13 (16), 2679. Schiller, P. H. (1950). Analysis of detour behavior: IV. Congruent and incongruent detour behavior in cats. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40 (2), 217. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & analgesia, 126 (5), 1763–1768. Smith, G. E., Chouinard, P. A., & Byosiere, S. E. (2021). If I fits I sits: A citizen science investigation into illusory contour susceptibility in domestic cats ( Felis silvestris catus ). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 240 , 105338. Smith, G. E., Chouinard, P. A., Lin, I., Tsoi, K. T., Agrillo, C., & Byosiere, S. E. (2022). Seeing Things: A Community Science Investigation into Motion Illusion Susceptibility in Domestic Cats ( Felis silvestris catus ) and Dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ). Animals, 12 (24), 3562. Smith, B. P., & Litchfield, C. A. (2013). Looking back at ‘looking back’: operationalising referential gaze for dingoes in an unsolvable task. Animal Cognition, 16 , 961–971. Szabo, B., Hoefer, S., & Whiting, M. J. (2020). Are lizards capable of inhibitory control? Performance on a semi-transparent version of the cylinder task in five species of Australian skinks. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 74 (10), 118. Titzer, R. C. (1997). Infants' understanding of transparency: A reinterpretation of studies using the object retrieval task and visual cliff. Indiana University. Yarbrough, J. U. (1917). The delayed reaction with sound and light in cats. Journal of Animal Behavior, 7 (2), 87–110. Yoshida, N., & Koda, N. (2020). Goats’ performance in unsolvable tasks is predicted by their reactivity toward humans, but not social rank. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 , 495299. Zhang, L., Needham, K. B., Juma, S., Si, X., & Martin, F. (2021). Feline communication strategies when presented with an unsolvable task: the attentional state of the person matters. Animal Cognition, 1–11. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. David Leavens is an Editorial Board Member of Animal Cognition and receives no financial compensation for this submission. Supplementary Files Supplementaryinformation1.pdf Supplementaryinformation2.mp4 Supplementaryinformation3.mp4 Supplementaryinformation4.mp4 Supplementaryinformation5.docx Supplementaryinformation6.csv Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3834933","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":265459180,"identity":"c465c68a-ef8e-45c9-8bf5-f0a83664408f","order_by":0,"name":"Jemma Forman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Sussex","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jemma","middleName":"","lastName":"Forman","suffix":""},{"id":265459181,"identity":"949d5404-568a-4298-b7c2-5112bce14f55","order_by":1,"name":"David Leavens","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Sussex","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"David","middleName":"","lastName":"Leavens","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-04 16:05:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49327351,"identity":"f2332a9a-1340-4002-9963-7b26d1e480b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:37:50","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1350392,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePhoto images of \u003cstrong\u003e(a)\u003c/strong\u003e the underside of the tray alongside the mesh, transparent and opaque cup and \u003cstrong\u003e(b)\u003c/strong\u003e the topside of the tray with the transparent cup placed in the centre over the white sticker. All cups were of approximately equal size (mesh = 9 cm x 9 cm x 10 cm; transparent and opaque cups = 9 cm x 9 cm x 11 cm). The transparent and opaque cup were modified by the researcher with the addition of two layers of magnetic wire around the rim of the cup and was secured using black mouldable adhesive glue (Sugru). The opaque cup was also modified with the addition of white kraft paper around the outside of the cup. No modification was made for the mesh cup\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1taskapparatus.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/f3b09dc59298e352fc740e4a.png"},{"id":49326020,"identity":"5941b80a-6d33-4f56-99e2-5fbc9066ec72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:50","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89395,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlots depicting the mean and standard error of observed proportions of apparatus-directed behaviour (left) and owner-directed behaviour (right) of \u003cstrong\u003e(a)\u003c/strong\u003e gazing at apparatus \u003cstrong\u003e(b)\u003c/strong\u003e gazing at owner \u003cstrong\u003e(c) \u003c/strong\u003eproximity with apparatus \u003cstrong\u003e(d)\u003c/strong\u003e proximity with owner \u003cstrong\u003e(e)\u003c/strong\u003ephysical contact with apparatus \u003cstrong\u003e(f) \u003c/strong\u003ephysical contact with owner between opaque (red) and transparent (blue) conditions. Raw data points are added as grey dots. Significance stars added from the respective 2 x 2 ANOVA (except for observed proportion of physical touch with owner which is purely illustrative)\u003cbr\u003e\n* = \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05 ** = \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01 *** = \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2plotstransparency.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/83976e0d1f58053d37910146.png"},{"id":49326018,"identity":"818a80a0-10a0-41ff-92bd-0685d1ba3e46","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:50","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30939,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePlot depicting significant interaction effects between the transparency conditions (transparent/opaque) and trial type (solvable/unsolvable) for observed proportion of proximity with the owner. Estimated marginal means and standard error bars of each group are presented on the plot\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3interactionplot.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/391eb5fcfe6e2e02b87ad04a.png"},{"id":51380632,"identity":"be7ef987-210f-46ca-b6b1-ef8429e5286c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-20 15:45:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1903418,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/24f4dfc6-729f-46ea-a846-e3a045a99f5d.pdf"},{"id":49326021,"identity":"b0f0d9e8-7d84-4065-b0a8-81ced1675fc6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":778483,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/9935fe199fa859cb6e2ed615.pdf"},{"id":49326026,"identity":"57808017-b1d1-4151-98dc-385e5a6e901e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:52","extension":"mp4","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":33640541,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation2.mp4","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/ab59a90c97887b307bb1aa16.mp4"},{"id":49326070,"identity":"1ea0f8d7-ec2f-4bbf-a22b-f251ef04e5a1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:56","extension":"mp4","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":99307109,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation3.mp4","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/da2be1844070c9db1054c52e.mp4"},{"id":49326046,"identity":"409995c1-3f60-415f-8058-6918bf594e4b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:54","extension":"mp4","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":61747572,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation4.mp4","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/75ffb90b7207a9e37f89747c.mp4"},{"id":49326022,"identity":"5eaa7cd6-295c-4004-97d7-ac9a379ca698","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:29:50","extension":"docx","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":582154,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation5.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/2bb8a109da7ede875d3a2ce7.docx"},{"id":49327352,"identity":"10a0585f-0829-4d36-8be7-ffdba82d8a00","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-08 17:37:50","extension":"csv","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":78645,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaryinformation6.csv","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3834933/v1/20f9a959752b11b7a47613d3.csv"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. David Leavens is an Editorial Board Member of Animal Cognition and receives no financial compensation for this submission.","formattedTitle":"The Effect of Transparency on Unsolvable Task Engagement in Domestic Cats (Felis catus) using Citizen Science","fulltext":[{"header":"Full Text","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe use of transparency in experimental studies is important to consider when interpreting the cognitive abilities of animals (Chapuis, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Poucet, 1983; Dor\u0026eacute;\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Dumas, 1987; Goulet, Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Rousseau, 1994; Kabadayi, Bobrowicz \u0026amp; Osvath, 2018), as well as human infants (Lockman, 1984; Munakata, McClelland, Johnson \u0026amp; Siegler, 1997; Noland, 2008; Titzer, 1997). Animals may fail to demonstrate motor inhibition during detour tasks when using transparent barriers (Kabadayi, Bobrowicz \u0026amp; Osvath, 2018) or may take a longer route to reach a reward when transparent barriers are used (Chapuis, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Poucet, 1983; Poucet, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Chapuis, 1983). In object permanence tasks, animals often fail at invisible displacements due to a reward being moved invisibly in opaque containers or behind opaque walls (Dor\u0026eacute;, 1986; Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Dumas, 1987; Pasnak, Kurkjian \u0026amp; Triana, 1988). However, the performance of animals in invisible displacement tasks, under some circumstances, could improve when a transparent container is used (Goulet, Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Rousseau, 1994) or when transparent barriers are implemented in a species-appropriate manner (Dumas, 1992). Conversely, researchers have found that performance is often worse with transparent barriers, presumably because of visual and tactile discrepancies (Titzer, 1997), or that visual perception takes priority over higher cognitive function (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Chapuis, 1983), or for reasons related to motivational deficits when an opaque barrier is used (Munakata, McClelland, Johnson \u0026amp; Siegler, 1997), or a lack of experience or naivety with transparent barriers (Juszczak \u0026amp; Miller, 2016;\u0026nbsp;Santos, Ericson \u0026amp; Hauser, 1999).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is large variation between studies on how transparency is implemented, for example, some barriers or containers are completely transparent (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Chapuis, 1983) versus semi-transparent (Juszczak \u0026amp; Miller, 2016;\u0026nbsp;Szabo, Hoefer \u0026amp; Whiting, 2020), and some rewards are continuously visible (Bobrowicz \u0026amp; Osvath, 2018; Poucet, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Chapuis, 1983; Pyari, V\u0026eacute;kony, Uccheddu \u0026amp; Pongr\u0026aacute;cz, 2022) versus only initially visible (Dumas, 1992; Schiller, 1950). Transparent barriers or objects are artificial to most animals (Kabadayi, Bobrowicz \u0026amp; Osvath, 2018), with some companion animals such as domestic dogs (\u003cem\u003eCanis familiaris\u003c/em\u003e) and domestic cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e) likely having more exposure with transparent materials, due to being housed in family homes with transparent windows and furniture (Marquardt, 2015). The interaction between the type of experimental paradigm used and the type of transparency implemented may affect the conclusions we make about an animal\u0026rsquo;s cognitive ability (Dumas, 1992; Goulet, Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Rousseau, 1994; Jaakkola, 2014; Mulcahy \u0026amp; Call, 2009;\u0026nbsp;Mulcahy \u0026amp; Hedge, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnsolvable tasks (also known as impossible tasks) comprise of a reward being placed in a location or container where the animal cannot independently reach the reward, and it can only be reached with the aid of the owner or caregiver (Mendes, Resende \u0026amp; Savalli, 2021a). Unsolvable tasks can be used to assess how animals use referential communication with their owner or caregiver in the form of gaze durations at a human, gaze alternations between apparatus and a human, latency to gaze at a human and looking back at the caregiver (Langbein, Krause \u0026amp; Nawroth, 2018; Mendes, Resende \u0026amp; Savalli, 2021a; Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005). Persistence can also be measured using physical touches with the task apparatus (Lazzaroni et al. 2019; Rao et al., 2018). There is lots of variation on how unsolvable tasks are administered, with some tasks requiring the animal to push a lid or pull a rope to reach a reward, which becomes unsolvable if the lid is sealed to a container (Zhang, Needham, Juma, Si \u0026amp; Martin, 2021) or the pulling mechanism is fixed and immobile (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2003; Smith \u0026amp; Litchfield, 2013). Unsolvable tasks have no standard transparency, with some studies using opaque containers (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005)\u0026nbsp;and some studies using transparent containers (Lazzaroni et al., 2019; Marshall-Pescini, Colombo, Passalacqua, Merola \u0026amp; Prato-Previde, 2013; P\u0026eacute;rez Fraga, Gerencs\u0026eacute;r, Lovas, \u0026Uacute;jv\u0026aacute;ry, \u0026amp; Andics, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). An experimental manipulation of container transparency on animal behaviour in unsolvable tasks is yet to be explored.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDogs are generally highly communicative with humans during unsolvable tasks by showing increased gazing durations at a human, more gaze alternations between the apparatus and human\u0026nbsp;and have a decreased latency to look at a human\u0026nbsp;(Marshall-Pescini et al., 2013;\u0026nbsp;Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2003; Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005). There are differences in gazing behaviours depending on the dogs\u0026rsquo; life experiences and training; pet dogs look for longer towards their owner and show more gaze alternation with their owners in comparison to free-ranging dogs (Lazzaroni et al., 2020) and shelter dogs (Gould et al., 2022; Mendes, Resende, \u0026amp; Savalli, 2021b). Conversely, dogs who participate in animal-assisted interventions and dogs trained for agility competitions have longer gazing durations and more frequent gaze alternations than pet dogs during unsolvable tasks (Cavalli, Carballo, Dzik \u0026amp; Bentosela, 2019;\u0026nbsp;Marshall-Pescini, Passalacqua, Barnard, Valsecchi \u0026amp; Prato-Previde, 2009). The behaviour of \u0026lsquo;looking back\u0026rsquo; towards a human and persistence with an unsolvable task may have different purposes depending on the life experience of the dog (Lazzaroni et al., 2019; Lazzaroni et al., 2020), as well as different uses in non-domestic canids (Smith \u0026amp; Litchfield, 2013). Additionally, socialised wolves are more inclined to use apparatus-directed behaviours over human-directed behaviours than are dogs (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2003; Rao et al., 2018). It should be noted that non-domestic animals are also capable of using referential communication during unsolvable tasks (McElligott, O\u0026apos;Keeffe \u0026amp; Green, 2020; Mendes, Resende \u0026amp; Savalli, 2021a; Ringhofer \u0026amp; Yamamoto, 2017; Yoshida \u0026amp; Koda, 2020), although not to the same extent as dogs (P\u0026eacute;rez Fraga et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCats predominantly communicate with their owner or caregiver using gazing behaviours, as opposed to physical contact, during unsolvable tasks (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005;\u0026nbsp;Scandurra, Di Lucrezia, D\u0026rsquo;Aniello \u0026amp; Pinelli, 2023;\u0026nbsp;Zhang et al., 2021). Cats\u0026nbsp;display fewer gaze alternations between hidden food and a human in comparison to dogs during unsolvable tasks\u0026nbsp;(Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005).\u0026nbsp;On the other hand, cats display more apparatus-directed touches in both solvable and unsolvable tasks (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005;\u0026nbsp;Scandurra et al., 2023;\u0026nbsp;Zhang et al., 2021). This focus on the apparatus is\u0026nbsp;likely a reflection of the distinct domestication processes of cats and dogs, of which cats have had a more self-selective domestication history than that of dogs (Driscoll, Macdonald \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, 2009). Cats are solitary animals and, in comparison to free-ranging dogs who often congregate in social groups, would not have needed to develop such overt or complex social behaviours with conspecifics or with humans (Driscoll, Macdonald \u0026amp; O\u0026rsquo;Brien, 2009;\u0026nbsp;Marshall-Pescini \u0026amp; Kaminski, 2014). During unsolvable tasks, cats behave more similarly to socialised wolves than pet dogs in that cats display more apparatus-directed behaviours (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2003; Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005). Furthermore, other lifestyle factors such as\u0026nbsp;age and outdoor access can influence unsolvable task engagement in cats, with older cats have shorter durations of apparatus-directed touches (but longer durations of apparatus-directed gazing) and indoor cats having longer durations of apparatus-directed touches (Scandurra et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePresent study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe transparency of a barrier or container may be either a help or a hindrance for a cat\u0026rsquo;s performance at an experimental task. Although the effect of transparency on task success has been investigated in cats in other problem-solving experimental studies (Poucet, Thinus-Blanc \u0026amp; Chapuis, 1983; Goulet, Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Rousseau, 1994), transparency is yet to be experimentally manipulated in conjunction with unsolvable tasks. Previous studies investigating cat behaviour during unsolvable tasks used either opaque (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005) or transparent containers (Scandurra et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2021) and assessed how cats may differentially communicate with their owner or caregiver based on task solvability. We aimed to expand on these previous studies and investigate how the effect of transparency may affect the owner- and apparatus-directed behaviour displayed during solvable and unsolvable tasks in cats. We achieved this by analysing the behaviour of cats in their home environment using citizen science methods and a species-engaging task of pushing over a non-magnetised (solvable) or magnetised (unsolvable) cup. We expected cats to have longer durations of gazing at, physically touching and being in proximity with the apparatus when the task is solvable using a transparent cup (visible reward). Additionally, we expected cats to have longer durations of gazing at, touching and being in proximity with the owner when the task is unsolvable using an opaque cup (hidden reward).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSubjects\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwners in the United Kingdom were recruited over a period of nine months (April - December 2021) via online social media advertisements and snowball sampling. Thirty-eight owners registered an interest in this study. Twenty-eight owners completed the online survey and were posted the materials to complete the study. Sixteen owners with 23 cats uploaded video recordings. One cat was excluded due to lack of interaction with the cup during exposure trials and did not continue to the experimental trials. One other cat was excluded for completing only three out of the four experimental trials. Thus, a total of 21 cats from 15 households were used in the analysis, consisting of 10 females (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e age = 3.77 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e age = 2.88 years) and 12 males (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e age = 7.90 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e age = 3.79 years). The average duration that cats lived in the household was 3.84 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 3.95 years). Fourteen cats lived in multi-cat households and 7 cats lived in single-cat households. All but one female cat was neutered. Eleven cats were indoor-only and 10 cats had indoor-outdoor access. Eighteen cats had female owners and 3 cats had male owners (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e age = 34.62 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e age = 6.12 years). There were no other pets present in any household.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProcedure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was carried out remotely amid lockdown restrictions from the COVID-19 pandemic, with the owners completing the study in their own homes without the physical presence of a researcher. Owners were first asked to complete an online questionnaire that was created using Qualtrics (\u003ca href=\"http://www.qualtrics.com\"\u003ewww.qualtrics.com\u003c/a\u003e). Owners were required to read through an information page outlining the study objectives, a consent page to read and electronically sign a cat stress awareness page that highlighted specific behaviours to be mindful of during the trials, for example hissing or growling. Owners were then asked a series of demographic questions regarding their cat\u0026rsquo;s age, sex, neuter status, outside access and length of time living in the current household. Owners were also asked a series of household demographic questions including their gender, age and the number of people in the household. Owners could then access videos that the researcher provided that demonstrated the correct positioning of the camera frame and examples of how to carry out all of the trials involving their cat.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy packs were posted to owners\u0026rsquo; homes upon completion of the online questionnaire. Each participating household received one study pack that contained all of the following materials: a printed copy of the information page, consent form and cat stress awareness page; a printed instruction booklet (Supplementary Information 1); three cups and a circular aluminium tray (see Fig. 1); eight small round disc magnets; sticky tack; a lightweight, flexible foam tripod; and a stopwatch. Owners were free to use a food treat of their choice as the reward for their cat. The tray acted as a base for the cups. The researcher had placed eight small white circular stickers (8 mm) around the centre point of the underside of the tray to indicate to the owner where the eight magnets should be placed during the unsolvable trials. One sticker was placed in the centre on the topside of the tray to indicate where owners should position the cup during all the trials. The underside stickers were measured so they lined up with the magnetic wire rim of the cups when placed on the centre sticker on the topside of the tray. Cats only saw the topside of the tray during all trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were three types of trial days \u0026ndash; exposure days, solvable days and unsolvable days. Three trials per day were carried out over a total of four or five consecutive days, depending on the number of completed exposure days. The task apparatus was positioned approximately 40 cm (two tray lengths) away from the owner\u0026rsquo;s sitting position. For all day types, one food treat was first placed on top of the tray without the presence of a cup to encourage cats to interact with the apparatus and motivate them for the upcoming three trials. After the initial food treat was consumed by the cat, the owner would individually cover a second, third and fourth treat with the relevant cup and the cat would be required to push the cup off the tray to reach the obscured treat. The owner would hold the treat up, visible to the cat, and simultaneously call the cat\u0026rsquo;s name to encourage the cat to look at the treat before placing the treat under the cup. In solvable trials, the cup can move freely on the tray. In unsolvable trials, the cup is magnetised to the tray. From the cat\u0026rsquo;s perspective, the apparatus looked visually the same in both solvable and unsolvable trials.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOwners would firstly carry out exposure trials using only the mesh cup (Supplementary Information 2). The purpose of the exposure trials was to familiarise the cat with the task of pushing over the cups to reach a treat. All cats had a minimum of two exposure days and were permitted a third exposure day if the cat did not independently push over the cup and consume the treat in all three trials by the end of the second exposure day. One cat had an additional fourth exposure day as they had only one trial for the second exposure day. The mesh cup provided both visual and olfactory cues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the exposure trials were completed, owners would continue to the experimental trials of either the solvable (Supplementary Information 3) or unsolvable trials (Supplementary Information 4) on the following day. Solvability was pseudo-randomised across subjects (12 cats saw solvable trials first and 9\u0026nbsp;cats saw unsolvable trials first). These experimental trials would use all three cups (mesh, transparent and opaque) only once. The mesh cup was always used first in these trials, with the transparency of the cup being randomised across the second and third trials. Owners would then proceed with the remaining condition (either solvable or unsolvable) on the next day following the same procedure. For unsolvable trials, owners would place the magnets on the stickers underneath the tray before the trials started for that day. All three cup types (mesh, transparent and opaque) were magnetised to the tray during the unsolvable trials. The presentation of transparency was also pseudo-randomised across four different combinations (7 opaque-transparent, opaque-transparent; 5 opaque-transparent, transparent-opaque; 7 transparent-opaque, opaque-transparent; 2 transparent-opaque, transparent-opaque). The opaque and transparent cups were made of solid acrylic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll trials ended once the cat had pushed over the cup and consumed the treat that was previously obstructed or until 45 s had elapsed. A short break was permitted between each trial (5 s). All cats were given the opportunity to consume the treat after every trial regardless of success. Owners were informed to keep the materials out of reach and sight of the cat unless they were preparing for or carrying out the trials. After completing all the trials, owners anonymously uploaded their video recordings to the online file hosting website Dropbox (\u003ca href=\"https://www.dropbox.com/\"\u003ehttps://www.dropbox.com/\u003c/a\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBehaviour coding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll behavioural coding was carried out using BORIS (Version 7.12.2, Friard \u0026amp; Gamba, 2016). Our coding scheme (Table 1) used similar behavioural definitions from other studies on domestic animals and unsolvable tasks (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., 2005; P\u0026eacute;rez Fraga et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). Total durations of gazing at and being in proximity with the owner and apparatus were coded. One-zero sampling (Altmann, 1974) was used to code for behaviours that were expected to occur very briefly or in quick succession (physical contact with apparatus, physical contact with owner, meows, purrs). The observation interval started as soon as the owner placed the cup on the tray and ended once the cat consumed the previously obstructed treat or until 45 s had elapsed, whichever came first.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Coding scheme of owner- and apparatus-directed behaviours and vocalisations displayed by the cat during solvable and unsolvable tasks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"left\" width=\"103%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBehaviour\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"bottom\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOwner-directed behaviour\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGaze at owner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time the cat gazes at any part of the owner\u0026rsquo;s body, including the torso, hands or face\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLatency\u003c/em\u003e time elapsed since the start of the observation interval until the first gaze towards the owner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProximity with owner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time that any part of the cat (e.g., paw, head, tail) is within approximately 20 cm (one tray length) of the owner\u0026rsquo;s body\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProximity-seeking behavior with owner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time the cat actively moves towards the owner\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical contact with owner\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time the cat makes physical contact with the owner using any part of the body (e.g., paw, head, tail, flank)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eApparatus-directed behaviour\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGaze at apparatus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e Total duration of time the cat looks at any part of the task apparatus, including the cup or the tray, that are being used in the current trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProximity with apparatus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time that any part of the cat (e.g., paw, head, tail) is within approximately 20 cm (one tray length) of the edge of the tray\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePhysical contact with apparatus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of time the cat makes physical contact with the cup or the tray using any part of the body (e.g., paw, head, tail). Sound cues were used to identify physical contact with the apparatus where the camera view was blocked (e.g., when cat was scratching at or pushing the cup)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGaze alternations between owner and apparatus\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFrequency\u003c/em\u003e one gaze alternation is a direct saccade between a fixated gaze at the owner and a fixated gaze at the apparatus (or vice versa)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLatency\u003c/em\u003e time elapsed from the start of the trial until the second saccade of the first gaze alternation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVocalisations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of the cat \u0026lsquo;meow/miaow\u0026rsquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.489795918367346%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"31.632653061224488%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.87755102040816%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDuration\u003c/em\u003e total duration of the cat purr\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll videos were coded by one main coder (JF) and 45 trials were coded by a secondary coder. There was almost perfect agreement for vocalisations (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa: meow \u0026kappa; = .96, purr \u0026kappa; = .97). There was modest agreement for physical contact with apparatus (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa, \u0026kappa; = .54) and moderate agreement for physical contact with owner (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s Kappa, \u0026kappa; = .75) (McHugh, 2012). There was poor correlation for latency to first gaze alternation (ICC = .38) and moderate correlations for gaze at apparatus (ICC = .71), gaze at owner (ICC = .72), latency to gaze at owner (ICC = .70) and proximity-seeking behaviour with the owner (ICC = .70). There was good correlation for proximity with apparatus (ICC = .76) and excellent correlation for proximity with owner (ICC = .91) (Koo \u0026amp; Li, 2016). There was a weak correlation between the two raters for the frequency of gaze alternations (Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rho,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;r\u003c/em\u003e = .34) (Schober, Boer \u0026amp; Schwarte, 2018). The coding carried out by the primary coder was used in subsequent analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 104 videos were received from owners. One owner had repeated the procedure with their cat at a later date due to the tray being moved a few centimetres in one trial by the cat themselves, which could have been potentially incentivising. However, the cat displayed consistent behaviours across trial type and transparency, regardless of whether the tray was movable, therefore we analysed the first time the cat went through the procedure, leaving 101 videos for subsequent analysis. These videos were separated into 284 trials (Table 2). There were a total of 84 experimental trials using an equal combination of solvability (solvable; unsolvable) and transparency (transparent; opaque) conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eTotal number of trials per condition (exposure, solvable and unsolvable trials) and transparency (mesh, transparent, opaque) (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e cats = 21). Note the mesh cups were used only in exposure trials and as the first trial on solvable and unsolvable days.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"529\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrial type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransparency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExposure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMesh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMesh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpaque\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransparent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnsolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMesh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnsolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOpaque\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"35.72778827977316%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnsolvable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"24.95274102079395%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransparent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.31947069943289%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSix cats did not complete the criterion of pushing over the cup independently in all three trials by the end of exposure day three. Three cats pushed over at least two out of three cups and two cats pushed over at least on cup. One cat did not push over any cups by the end of exposure day three; this same cat also did not push over any cups by the\u0026nbsp;end of exposure day two but did push over two out of three cups independently on exposure day one. This cat seemed to prefer to interact more with\u0026nbsp;their owner than the apparatus and did not show any signs of stress that would have warranted cessation of the experiment. Although the criterion by the end of day two was to push over all the cups, this was to only determine whether the cats could have an extra exposure day. We therefore elected to retain all cats that pushed over the cup independently at least once overall for statistical analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were carried out in R (Version 2022.07.2) using the DescTools, emmeans, EnvStats, ggpubr, irr, qqplotr, rstatix, sjstats and tidyverse packages. R code is available in Supplementary Information 5 and the dataset is available in Supplementary Information 6. The total durations of gazing at apparatus, gazing at owner, proximity with apparatus, proximity with owner, physical contact with apparatus and physical contact with owner were converted into proportions of observation time (behaviour / observation interval) to account for the different trial durations across experimental conditions. Tests of assumptions of normality were carried out using the Shapiro-Wilk test and residuals were visualised using QQ plots and histograms. Extreme outliers (\u003ccode\u003edata points that were more than 3 times the interquartile range above the third quartile or below the first quartile\u003c/code\u003e) were also identified. Residuals were normally distributed for the observed proportion of gazing at apparatus. Residuals were right-skewed for observed proportion of gazing at owner and observed proportion of physical contact and residuals were left-skewed for observed proportion of proximity with apparatus. Variables with skewness were transformed using arcsine square root transformations, suitable for data representing a proportion. Normality was re-assessed after these variables were transformed with slight improvement in normality. Observed proportion of proximity with the owner had a multimodal distribution and so no transformation was carried out on this dependent variable. Comparisons were made between the analyses of non-transformed and transformed data; the interpretation did not differ between the non-transformed and transformed data and so the results of the non-transformed analyses are reported in Results. The results of the non-transformed analyses should be interpreted carefully and taken into consideration that the data are not normally distributed. One dependent variable, observed proportion of physical contact with owner, had so few occurrences (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 9) that all of these data points were identified as extreme outliers. Therefore, no statistical analyses were carried out for the observed proportion of physical contact with the owner.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo-way (2 x 2) repeated-measures ANOVAs were used for the dependent variables of: observed proportion of gazing at apparatus, observed proportion of gazing at owner, observed proportion of physical contact with the apparatus, observed proportion of proximity with apparatus and observed proportion of proximity with owner. Transparency (transparent/opaque) and trial type (solvable/unsolvable) were the predictors in all ANOVAs with cat ID as a random effect.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePearson\u0026rsquo;s correlations were used to assess correlations between cat age and observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus, observed proportion of gazing at the owner and the observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequency counts for number of successful solvable trials based on transparency, whether a cat has outdoor access and whether cats saw the solvable or unsolvable days first. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats in the observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eEleven cats had two exposure days, 9 cats had three exposure days and 1 cat had four exposure days. Median latencies to task success, first gaze at the owner and first gaze alternation for exposure and experimental trials are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. All 21 cats gazed at the apparatus across 145 exposure trials. Sixteen cats gazed at the owner across 52 exposure trials. Seven cats showed at least one gaze alternation in 12 exposure trials. Two of these cats alternated their gaze more than once between the apparatus and their owner; one cat alternated twice and one cat alternated 5 times. All cats were in proximity with the apparatus across 152 exposure trials. Twenty cats were in proximity with the owner at least once across 66 exposure trials. All cats touched the apparatus in at least three separate exposure trials. Three cats made physical contact with the owner in three separate exposure trials. There were few vocalisations made by cats in exposure trials; two cats meowed in three trials total and two different cats purred in three trials total.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian latencies with ranges of task success, first gaze at owner and first gaze alternation per condition (exposure, solvable and unsolvable) and transparency (transparent, opaque). Number of trials in which cats displayed these behaviours in each condition are also presented. No cats were successful in unsolvable, opaque conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTrial type\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian latency to task success (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian latency to first gaze at owner (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedian latency to first gaze alternation (s)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExposure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMesh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.96 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;119)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3.33\u0026ndash;45.00)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.27 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;51)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0\u0026ndash;36.02)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.48 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;12)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2.72\u0026ndash;24.49)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolvable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpaque\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.86 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(20.18\u0026ndash;36.34)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.60 \u003cem\u003e(n\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;18)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.72\u0026ndash;34.76)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.72 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2.22\u0026ndash;40.26)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSolvable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.41 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(5.05\u0026ndash;43.11)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.51 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2.24\u0026ndash;30.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.11 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(21.02\u0026ndash;23. 21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsolvable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpaque\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.48 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(0.94\u0026ndash;43.77)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.72 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(1.48\u0026ndash;29.19)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnsolvable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTransparent\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.96 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(8.36\u0026ndash;45.00)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.23 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;15)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3.74\u0026ndash;42.50)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22.52 (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(6.50\u0026ndash;38.54)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwelve cats saw the solvable trials first and 9 cats saw the unsolvable trials first. Fourteen cats successfully solved the task in pushing over the cup in 17/42 solvable trials (3 opaque, 14 transparent). There was a significantly higher number of successes in the solvable trials when the cat was first given the solvable day (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13) in comparison to the unsolvable day (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4) (\u003cem\u003eX\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029). There was a significantly higher number of successes in the solvable trials when a transparent cup was used (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14) in comparison to when an opaque cup was used (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3) (\u003cem\u003eX\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.007). There was not a significance difference in the number of successes in the solvable trials between indoor cats (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9) or indoor-outdoor cats (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8) (\u003cem\u003eX\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.808). Four cats knocked over the transparent cups in unsolvable trials within the observation interval of 45 s. Two of these cats pushed over the mesh cups in one unsolvable trial each outside of the observation interval. Three different cats knocked over the mesh cup in unsolvable trials within the observation interval. The cup was successfully magnetised to the tray in all of these trials and the cats were persistent and forceful in using their paws to push or pull the cup. One cat primarily used their head to push the cup.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll cats gazed at the apparatus in all experimental trials where gaze direction could be determined (one cat\u0026rsquo;s head was not in camera view during one trial). Cat age and the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus were not significantly correlated (Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(82)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.064). Eighteen cats gazed at the owner in 25 solvable trials (18 opaque, 7 transparent). Nineteen cats gazed at the owner in 30 unsolvable trials (15 opaque, 15 transparent). Ten cats gaze-alternated across 11 solvable trials (nine opaque, two transparent). One cat gaze-alternated in both solvable trials. Nine cats gaze-alternated across 9 unsolvable trials (seven opaque, two transparent). No cat demonstrated gaze alternation more than once in the experimental trials. Cat age and the observed proportion of gazing at the owner were significantly correlated (Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(82)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.62, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) with older cats displaying longer durations of gazing at their owner than younger cats.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll 21 cats were in proximity with the apparatus across all solvability and transparency conditions. Seventeen cats were in proximity with the owner across 23 solvable trials (16 opaque, 7 transparent). Seventeen cats were in proximity with the owner across 31 unsolvable trials (14 opaque, 17 transparent).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEighteen cats touched the cup in 49 experimental trials. Sixteen cats touched the apparatus across 27 solvable trials (11 opaque, 16 transparent. Sixteen cats touched the apparatus across 22 unsolvable trials (6 opaque, 16 transparent). Even when touching the apparatus at least once, 10 cats in 10 trials did not solve the task in solvable conditions (8 opaque, 2 transparent). There was a significant correlation between cat age and the observed proportion of touch with the apparatus (Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(82) = -3.09, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002) with older cats spending less time in contact with the apparatus than younger cats. There were no significant differences between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats on the observed proportion of touch with the apparatus (Mann-Whitney \u003cem\u003eZ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.959). Five cats made physical contact with their owner across 6 solvable trials (four opaque, two transparent) and 3 unsolvable trials (one opaque, two transparent). Six of these contacts with the owner were made in the same multi-cat household; one cat made contact in all four experimental trials and the second cat made contact in two experimental trials (one solvable-opaque and one unsolvable-transparent).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere was a low frequency of vocalisations across all experimental trials; two cats purred in two solvable-opaque trials and two cats meowed in three solvable trials (two opaque and one transparent).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTransparency\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA summary of the effect of transparency on the observed proportions of apparatus- and owner-directed behaviours is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. There was a significant effect of transparency on the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 13.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002), observed proportion of gazing at the owner (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 4.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.045 and observed proportion of physical touch with the apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 24.29, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). There were longer durations of gazing at and physical touches with the apparatus in transparent cup conditions than in the opaque cup conditions. Conversely, there were longer durations of gazing at the owner in opaque cup conditions than in the transparent cup conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were no significant effects of transparency on the observed proportion of proximity with the apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.360) or the observed proportion of proximity with the owner (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.73, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.114).\u003c/p\u003e \n\u003ch3\u003eSolvability\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere were no significant main effects on solvability for any owner- or apparatus-directed behaviours. There was not a significant effect of trial type on the observed proportion of gazing at the apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.42, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.522), observed proportion of gazing at the owner (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.02, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.171), observed proportion of proximity with the apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 2.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.124), observed proportion of proximity with the owner (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.72, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.408) or the observed proportion of physical touch with apparatus (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 0.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.728).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, there was a significant interaction effect between transparency and trial type on observed proportion of proximity with owner (F\u003csub\u003e1,20\u003c/sub\u003e = 5.51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029). The highest observed proportion of proximity with the owner was in the solvable, opaque cup condition and the lowest observed proportion of proximity with the owner was in the solvable, transparent cup condition (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCats had significantly more apparatus-directed touches when the cup was transparent versus opaque. A greater number of cats were successful at pushing over the solvable, transparent cup versus the solvable, opaque cup. These differences in physical touches with the apparatus are unlikely to be the result of a cat failing to remember the existence of the treat; cats are still able to locate a hidden object at a level higher than chance with delays of up to 60 seconds but this rapidly declines 30 seconds after the object\u0026rsquo;s disappearance (Cowan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1923\u003c/span\u003e; Fiset \u0026amp; Dor\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Goulet, Dor\u0026eacute; \u0026amp; Lehotkay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e; Meyers, McQuiston \u0026amp; Miles, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1962\u003c/span\u003e; Yarbrough, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1917\u003c/span\u003e). As our trials were 45 seconds, it is likely that cats remained aware of the existence of the temporarily obscured treat. Additionally, cats were provided a highly salient reward that was selected by the owner which should have further incentivised cats to push both the transparent and opaque cup over (Triana \u0026amp; Pasnak, 1981). However, the cats in our current study always had an opportunity to consume the treat from underneath the cup regardless of their success at the task, with their owner lifting the cup for them. As they previously had multiple exposure days using mesh cups, the cats may have learned they would be able to consume the treat even if they did not push the cups over themselves (extinction effect). Additionally, as cats prefer not to work harder for a reward if there is an easier way to reach an equivalent reward (Delgado, Han \u0026amp; Bain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), this would mean cats may have preferred to wait for their owner to lift the cup than touch the apparatus themselves. This effect may be exaggerated when an opaque cup (hidden treat) is used, where there is no constant visual feedback of the treat\u0026rsquo;s existence.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCats overall displayed more apparatus-directed behaviours and relatively fewer owner-directed behaviours of touch, proximity and gazing. Instead, cats were more persistent with the task apparatus and displayed fewer owner-directed behaviours, behaving more similarly to socialised wolves than, say, domestic dogs (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Our original hypothesis was that there would be more owner-directed behaviours in unsolvable, opaque conditions, however there were very few instances of owner-directed touches across both the opaque and transparent conditions and cats were instead more persistent with the task apparatus than with their owners, which is comparable with what previous studies have reported (Mikl\u0026oacute;si et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Scandurra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The only owner-directed behaviour that significantly differed between transparencies was the observed proportion of gazing duration towards the owner, with cats gazing for longer durations in opaque cup conditions. It should be highlighted that overall duration of gazing towards owners was still relatively short. Out of the cats who gazed at their owners, cats often gazed at their owner shortly after they placed the cup down and most cats had a short latency to their first gaze alternation between the task apparatus and the owner (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Older cats also had a longer duration of owner-directed gazing than did younger cats, a trend also found in dogs (Passalacqua et al., (2011). Although we did not record whether owners regularly fed their cats treats, cats would likely have a strongly reinforced previous association between the owner and food in general (Lazzaroni et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, the longer duration of gazing at the owner is likely the result of a long-standing association between the owner and food rather than an explicit problem-solving behaviour, which is further exaggerated when an opaque cup is used to obscure a treat.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also found that lifestyle factors of cat age and outdoor access had an impact on solvable task success and overall apparatus-directed behaviours. We found that older cats had shorter durations of apparatus-directed touches, a similar finding to that of previous studies (Scandurra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, we also found that older cats had shorter durations of apparatus-directed gazing, whereas previous studies had found that older cats had longer durations of apparatus-directed gazing (Scandurra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Other studies also reported that older cats approached the apparatus more frequently than younger cats (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, we found no difference in solvable task success between indoor-only and indoor-outdoor cats. We also found no differences in overall observed proportion of touch between indoor-only or indoor-outdoor cats. Previous studies found that indoor cats engaged with an unsolvable task for longer durations than indoor-outdoor cats (Scandurra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThere were no differences between transparent and opaque conditions for the total durations of owner- or apparatus-directed proximity. However, the task apparatus was positioned approximately 40 cm away from the owner and some cats sat or stood between the apparatus and the owner in this space. Despite this, there was an interaction effect in the proximity with the owner between solvability and transparency; when the task was solvable and used a transparent cup, cats were significantly less likely to be in proximity with the owner. When the task was unsolvable and used an opaque cup, cats were significantly more likely to be in proximity with the owner, which supports our original hypothesis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study successfully implemented a citizen science methodology using a species-friendly task for cats. Citizen science methods have also been successful in previous studies on cat cognition, albeit with a relatively large loss from the initial pool of participants (Smith, Chouinard \u0026amp; Byosiere, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fukimoto, Albuquerque \u0026amp; Savalli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). We similarly had a large decrease in participants from the initial pool of 38 owners to a final sample of 15 owners. Nonetheless, relative to other research methods, fewer cats in our study were excluded for stress-related reasons, for example, from the process of being moved to a novel testing environment (Zhang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), highlighting a substantial advantage to in-home testing protocols. Out of the owners who sent their videos, only one cat was excluded in our sample who seemed to be uninterested in the task apparatus (one other cat was also excluded but only because their owner did not carry out all trials, not because of apparent disinterest). We encourage the implementation of citizen science methods, or synchronous citizen science methods (Fukimoto, Albuquerque \u0026amp; Savalli, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), to investigate the extent to which these methods may encourage task engagement, particularly for house cats who are particularly neophobic and highly sensitive to changes in their environment (Bradshaw, Goodwin, Legrand-Defretin \u0026amp; Nott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, our study highlights how transparency can interfere with how cats may physically approach an unsolvable task. As there were no main effects of solvability across both owner- and apparatus-directed behaviours, this demonstrates that transparency interferes with whether a cat will initiate apparatus-directed touches. It appears that using a transparent container and a species-friendly methodology encourages cats to engage with the task apparatus, with cats interacting with the task more persistently and also gazing at the apparatus for longer durations. Conversely, using opaque containers encourages cats to gaze at their owners for longer durations, regardless of whether the task was solvable or unsolvable. Alternative explanations about task persistence and the social behaviours of cats may have been concluded if only using either transparent or opaque containers. In future studies, it should be made certain that the subject understands when a task is solvable or unsolvable (for example, by physically touching the apparatus) in order to appropriately interpret the referential behaviours the subject displays, and that transparency of apparatus may interfere with how a subject interacts with the apparatus.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank Jordan Rowe for acting as a second coder for this study. We would also like to thank all of the owners and their cats who took the time to participate in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApproval was obtained by the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body at the University of Sussex (reference: ARG-24). The procedures used in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information files).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBoth authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by JF. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JF and both authors commented on previous version of the manuscript. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid Leavens is an Editorial Board Member of Animal Cognition and receives no financial compensation for this submission.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo specific funding was received for conducting this study, but JF and DL were supported by the School of Psychology, University of Sussex.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAltmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior: sampling methods. Behaviour, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 227\u0026ndash;266.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBobrowicz, K., \u0026amp; Osvath, M. (2018). Cats parallel great apes and corvids in motor self-regulation\u0026ndash;not brain but material size matters. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 9\u003c/em\u003e, 1995.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBradshaw, J. W., Goodwin, D., Legrand-Defretin, V., \u0026amp; Nott, H. M. (1996). Food selection by the domestic cat, an obligate carnivore. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Physiology, \u003cem\u003e114\u003c/em\u003e(3), 205\u0026ndash;209.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCavalli, C., Carballo, F., Dzik, M. V., \u0026amp; Bentosela, M. (2020). Gazing as a help requesting behavior: a comparison of dogs participating in animal-assisted interventions and pet dogs. Animal Cognition, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e, 141\u0026ndash;147.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChapuis, N., Thinus-Blanc, C., \u0026amp; Poucet, B. (1983). Dissociation of mechanisms involved in dogs\u0026rsquo; oriented displacements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(3b), 213\u0026ndash;219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCowan, E. A. (1923). An experiment testing the ability of a cat to make delayed response and to maintain a given response toward a varying stimulus. Journal of Comparative Psychology, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDelgado, M. M., Han, B. S. G., \u0026amp; Bain, M. J. (2022). Domestic cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e) prefer freely available food over food that requires effort. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(1), 95\u0026ndash;102.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDore, F. Y. (1986). Object permanence in adult cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e). Journal of Comparative Psychology, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(4), 340.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDor\u0026eacute;, F. Y., \u0026amp; Dumas, C. (1987). Psychology of animal cognition: Piagetian studies. Psychological Bulletin, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e(2), 219.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDriscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W., \u0026amp; O'Brien, S. J. (2009). From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106\u003c/em\u003e(supplement_1), 9971\u0026ndash;9978.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDumas, C. (1992). Object permanence in cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e): An ecological approach to the study of invisible displacements. Journal of Comparative Psychology, \u003cem\u003e106\u003c/em\u003e(4), 404.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFiset, S., \u0026amp; Dor\u0026eacute;, F. Y. (2006). Duration of cats' (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e) working memory for disappearing objects. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 62\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriard, O., \u0026amp; Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event‐logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in ecology and evolution, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1325\u0026ndash;1330.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFukimoto, N., Albuquerque, N., \u0026amp; Savalli, C. (2023). Synchronous citizen science: A new method for cat behavior research. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e, 18\u0026ndash;21.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGould, K., Iversen, P., Sikkink, S., Rem, R., \u0026amp; Templeton, J. (2022). Persistence and gazing at humans during an unsolvable task in dogs: The influence of ownership duration, living situation, and prior experience with humans. Behavioural Processes, \u003cem\u003e201\u003c/em\u003e, 104710.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoulet, S., Dor\u0026eacute;, F. Y., \u0026amp; Lehotkay, R. (1996). Activation of locations in working memory in cats. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(1b), 81\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoulet, S., Dor\u0026eacute;, F. Y., \u0026amp; Rousseau, R. (1994). Object permanence and working memory in cats (Felis catus). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 347.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJaakkola, K. (2014). Do animals understand invisible displacement? A critical review. Journal of Comparative Psychology, \u003cem\u003e128\u003c/em\u003e(3), 225.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJuszczak, G. R., \u0026amp; Miller, M. (2016). Detour behavior of mice trained with transparent, semitransparent and opaque barriers. PloS one, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(9), e0162018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKabadayi, C., Bobrowicz, K., \u0026amp; Osvath, M. (2018). The detour paradigm in animal cognition. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 21\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoo, T. K., \u0026amp; Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155\u0026ndash;163.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLangbein, J., Krause, A., \u0026amp; Nawroth, C. (2018). Human-directed behaviour in goats is not affected by short-term positive handling. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 795\u0026ndash;803.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLazzaroni, M., Marshall-Pescini, S., Manzenreiter, H., Gosch, S., Přibilov\u0026aacute;, L., Darc, L., McGetrick, J., \u0026amp; Range, F. (2020). Why do dogs look back at the human in an impossible task? Looking back behaviour may be over-interpreted. Animal Cognition, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(3), 427\u0026ndash;441.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLazzaroni, M., Range, F., Bernasconi, L., Darc, L., Holtsch, M., Massimei, R., Rao, A., \u0026amp; Marshall-Pescini, S. (2019). The role of life experience in affecting persistence: A comparative study between free-ranging dogs, pet dogs and captive pack dogs. PLoS One, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), e0214806.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLockman, J. J. (1984). The development of detour ability during infancy. Child Development, 482\u0026ndash;491.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarshall-Pescini, S., Colombo, E., Passalacqua, C., Merola, I., \u0026amp; Prato-Previde, E. (2013). Gaze alternation in dogs and toddlers in an unsolvable task: evidence of an audience effect. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 933\u0026ndash;943.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarshall-Pescini, S., \u0026amp; Kaminski, J. (2014). The social dog: history and evolution. In \u003cem\u003eThe Social Dog\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 3\u0026ndash;33). Academic Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarshall-Pescini, S., Passalacqua, C., Barnard, S., Valsecchi, P., \u0026amp; Prato-Previde, E. (2009). Agility and search and rescue training differently affects pet dogs\u0026rsquo; behaviour in socio-cognitive tasks. Behavioural processes, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(3), 416\u0026ndash;422.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarquardt, G., Cross, E. S., De Sousa, A. A., Edelstein, E., Farn\u0026egrave;, A., Leszczynski, M., Patterson, M., \u0026amp; Quadflieg, S. (2015). There or not there? A multidisciplinary review and research agenda on the impact of transparent barriers on human perception, action, and social behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 1381.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcElligott, A. G., O'Keeffe, K. H., \u0026amp; Green, A. C. (2020). Kangaroos display gazing and gaze alternations during an unsolvable problem task. Biology Letters, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(12), 20200607.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(3), 276\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMendes, J. W. W., Resende, B., \u0026amp; Savalli, C. (2021a). A review of the unsolvable task in dog communication and cognition: comparing different methodologies. Animal Cognition, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(5), 907\u0026ndash;922.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMendes, J. W. W., Resende, B., \u0026amp; Savalli, C. (2021b). Effect of different experiences with humans in dogs\u0026rsquo; visual communication. Behavioural Processes, \u003cem\u003e192\u003c/em\u003e, 104487.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMeyers, W. J., McQuiston, M. D., \u0026amp; Miles, R. C. (1962). Delayed-response and learning-set performance of cats. Journal of comparative and physiological Psychology, \u003cem\u003e55\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e), 515.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMikl\u0026oacute;si, \u0026Aacute;., Kubinyi, E., Top\u0026aacute;l, J., G\u0026aacute;csi, M., Vir\u0026aacute;nyi, Z., \u0026amp; Cs\u0026aacute;nyi, V. (2003). A simple reason for a big difference: wolves do not look back at humans, but dogs do. Current biology, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(9), 763\u0026ndash;766.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMikl\u0026oacute;si, \u0026Aacute;., Pongr\u0026aacute;cz, P., Lakatos, G., Top\u0026aacute;l, J., \u0026amp; Cs\u0026aacute;nyi, V. (2005). A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in interactions between dogs (\u003cem\u003eCanis familiaris\u003c/em\u003e) and humans and cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis catus\u003c/em\u003e) and humans. Journal of comparative psychology, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e(2), 179.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulcahy, N. J., \u0026amp; Call, J. (2009). The performance of bonobos (Pan paniscus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) in two versions of an object-choice task. Journal of comparative psychology, \u003cem\u003e123\u003c/em\u003e(3), 304.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulcahy, N. J., \u0026amp; Hedge, V. (2012). Are great apes tested with an abject object-choice task?. Animal Behaviour, \u003cem\u003e83\u003c/em\u003e(2), 313\u0026ndash;321.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMunakata, Y., McClelland, J. L., Johnson, M. H., \u0026amp; Siegler, R. S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological review, \u003cem\u003e104\u003c/em\u003e(4), 686.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNoland, J. S. (2008). Executive functioning demands of the object retrieval task for 8-month-old infants. Child Neuropsychology, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(6), 504\u0026ndash;509.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePasnak, R., Kurkjian, M., \u0026amp; Triana, E. (1988). Assessment of Stage 6 object permanence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(4), 368\u0026ndash;370.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez Fraga, P., Gerencs\u0026eacute;r, L., Lovas, M., \u0026Uacute;jv\u0026aacute;ry, D., \u0026amp; Andics, A. (2021). Who turns to the human? Companion pigs\u0026rsquo; and dogs\u0026rsquo; behaviour in the unsolvable task paradigm. Animal Cognition, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e, 33\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoucet, B., Thinus-Blanc, C., \u0026amp; Chapuis, N. (1983). Route planning in cats, in relation to the visibility of the goal. Animal Behaviour, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(2), 594\u0026ndash;599.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePyari, M. S, V\u0026eacute;kony, K., Uccheddu, S., \u0026amp; Pongr\u0026aacute;cz, P. (2022). Companion cats show no effect of trial-and-error learning compared to dogs in a transparent-obstacle detour task. Animals, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRao, A., Bernasconi, L., Lazzaroni, M., Marshall-Pescini, S., \u0026amp; Range, F. (2018). Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans. PeerJ, 6, e5944.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRinghofer, M., \u0026amp; Yamamoto, S. (2017). Domestic horses send signals to humans when they face with an unsolvable task. Animal cognition, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(3), 397\u0026ndash;405.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRummel, R. J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eApplied factor analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Northwestern University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSantos, L. R., Ericson, B. N., \u0026amp; Hauser, M. D. (1999). Constraints on problem solving and inhibition: Object retrieval in cotton-top tamarins (\u003cem\u003eSaguinus oedipus oedipus\u003c/em\u003e). Journal of Comparative Psychology, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e(2), 186.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScandurra, A., Di Lucrezia, A., D\u0026rsquo;Aniello, B., \u0026amp; Pinelli, C. (2023). Home Sweet Home: The Impact of Lifestyle on a Cat\u0026rsquo;s Approach to Impossible Tasks in the Home Environment. Animals, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(16), 2679.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchiller, P. H. (1950). Analysis of detour behavior: IV. Congruent and incongruent detour behavior in cats. Journal of Experimental Psychology, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 217.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchober, P., Boer, C., \u0026amp; Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia \u0026amp; analgesia, \u003cem\u003e126\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1763\u0026ndash;1768.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, G. E., Chouinard, P. A., \u0026amp; Byosiere, S. E. (2021). If I fits I sits: A citizen science investigation into illusory contour susceptibility in domestic cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis silvestris catus\u003c/em\u003e). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, \u003cem\u003e240\u003c/em\u003e, 105338.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, G. E., Chouinard, P. A., Lin, I., Tsoi, K. T., Agrillo, C., \u0026amp; Byosiere, S. E. (2022). Seeing Things: A Community Science Investigation into Motion Illusion Susceptibility in Domestic Cats (\u003cem\u003eFelis silvestris catus\u003c/em\u003e) and Dogs (\u003cem\u003eCanis lupus familiaris\u003c/em\u003e). Animals, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(24), 3562.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, B. P., \u0026amp; Litchfield, C. A. (2013). Looking back at \u0026lsquo;looking back\u0026rsquo;: operationalising referential gaze for dingoes in an unsolvable task. Animal Cognition, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e, 961\u0026ndash;971.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSzabo, B., Hoefer, S., \u0026amp; Whiting, M. J. (2020). Are lizards capable of inhibitory control? Performance on a semi-transparent version of the cylinder task in five species of Australian skinks. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, \u003cem\u003e74\u003c/em\u003e(10), 118.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTitzer, R. C. (1997). Infants' understanding of transparency: A reinterpretation of studies using the object retrieval task and visual cliff. Indiana University.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYarbrough, J. U. (1917). The delayed reaction with sound and light in cats. Journal of Animal Behavior, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(2), 87\u0026ndash;110.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoshida, N., \u0026amp; Koda, N. (2020). Goats\u0026rsquo; performance in unsolvable tasks is predicted by their reactivity toward humans, but not social rank. Frontiers in Psychology, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e, 495299.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, L., Needham, K. B., Juma, S., Si, X., \u0026amp; Martin, F. (2021). Feline communication strategies when presented with an unsolvable task: the attentional state of the person matters. \u003cem\u003eAnimal Cognition, 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"domestic cat, unsolvable task, transparency, social communication, citizen science","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"Multiple species of animal are known to display different behaviours and have varying degrees of problem-solving task success when faced with transparent, semi-transparent or opaque versions of the same task. As such, transparency can affect how researchers interpret the limits of a species’ cognitive abilities or success on a task. We assessed how transparency may affect task engagement and social behaviours using the unsolvable task paradigm in domestic cats and their owners. We carried out a citizen science study that required cats to push over a non-magnetised (solvable) and magnetised (unsolvable) cup to reach an obscured food treat. All cats saw a transparent and opaque version of this cup. We assessed the effects of transparency and solvability on owner-directed and apparatus-directed behaviour displayed by the cat. We found significant differences in owner- and apparatus-directed gazing, as well as apparatus-directed touches, between transparent and opaque conditions. We also found an interaction effect between transparency and solvability for proximity with the owner, with cats being in proximity for longer durations with the owner in solvable, transparent conditions. No main effects of solvability were found on any recorded owner- or apparatus-directed behaviour. We discuss the implications of transparency on unsolvable task engagement, as well as the implementation of citizen science methods, particularly in cat research.","manuscriptTitle":"The Effect of Transparency on Unsolvable Task Engagement in Domestic Cats (Felis catus) using Citizen Science","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-08 17:29:45","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3834933/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"20628724-2f4c-424a-ba12-7f672972bdfc","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 8th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-02-20T15:37:18+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-08 17:29:45","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3834933","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3834933","identity":"rs-3834933","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}