Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Tails Between Legs Lol My Internet Is Working Again Lmao

Tails Between Legs Lol My Internet Is Working Again Lmao

Post a Comment
  • Journal List
  • PLoS One
  • PMC3212522

PLoS I. 2011; 6(11): e26553.

A Vicious Bicycle: A Cantankerous-Exclusive Study of Canine Tail-Chasing and Homo Responses to It, Using a Free Video-Sharing Website

Charlotte C. Burn

Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Majestic Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom,

Petter Holme, Editor

Received 2011 Jun 3; Accepted 2011 Sep 28.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Condensed descriptions of all the data collected apropos YouTube™ videos of dogs chasing their tails. * indicates that the data were as well collected for breed-matched control videos.

(Physician)

GUID: 062A76AD-77DE-48C8-B8F1-255716C68436

Table S2: The detailed description of criteria for scoring the presence or absence of detail characteristics in YouTube™ videos of dogs chasing their tails. This includes a subset of the behavioural ethogram used to score the domestic dog behaviour throughout the report. This summary was sent to the creature behaviour adept (OHB) who scored the xl videos to allow inter-observer reliability to be tested.

(DOC)

GUID: 69DA8DAE-A474-4035-A9A3-787A8D843580

Table S3: Intra- and inter-observer reliability for selected variables describing dogs chasing their tails on YouTube™. For each variable, the raw percentage agreement (%), the prevalence index (P.I.) and the κ value (for chiselled variables) or W value (for ordinal variables) is shown. * indicates that the κ value fell below the clinically acceptable threshold of 0.4 (e.1000. Sim & Wright, 2005), so the variable should be discarded from further analysis. ¥ indicates that the variable is ordinal, rather than categorical.

(Doc)

GUID: 9E2DDDE3-7AE0-44CB-9649-6F4C5DA1970E

Abstract

Tail-chasing is widely celebrated as normal canine behaviour in cultural references. However, all previous scientific studies of tail-chasing or 'spinning' have comprised pocket-sized clinical populations of dogs with neurological, compulsive or other pathological atmospheric condition; almost were ultimately euthanased. Thus, there is great disparity betwixt scientific and public information on tail-chasing. I gathered information on the first large (n = 400), non-clinical tail-chasing population, made possible through a vast, free, online video repository, YouTube™. The demographics of this online population are described and discussed. Approximately one tertiary of tail-chasing dogs showed clinical signs, including habitual (daily or 'all the time') or perseverative (difficult to distract) performance of the behaviour. These signs were observed across various breeds. Clinical signs appeared virtually unrecognised past the video owners and commenting viewers; laughter was recorded in 55% of videos, encouragement in 43%, and the commonest viewer descriptors were that the behaviour was 'funny' (46%) or 'cute' (42%). Habitual tail-chasers had 6.5+/−2.iii times the odds of beingness described as 'Stupid' than other dogs, and perseverative dogs were 6.8+/−2.i times more frequently described as 'Funny' than distractible ones were. Compared with breed- and age-matched control videos, tail-chasing videos were significantly more often indoors and with a computer/television screen switched on. These findings highlight that tail-chasing is sometimes pathological, but can remain untreated, or even be encouraged, because of an assumption that it is 'normal' dog behaviour. The enormous viewing figures that YouTube™ attracts (hateful+/−s.east. = 863+/−197 viewings per tail-chasing video) suggest that this perception will be further reinforced, without effective intervention.

Introduction

Tail-chasing in dogs is widely historic in cultural references, such as its delineation in the cheerful, repetitive phrases of Chopin's Minute Waltz [1], and every bit performed by Sirius Black's animagus canis familiaris, Padfoot, in the Harry Potter serial, when it is accompanied by a 'joyful bawl' [two]. Notwithstanding, scientific literature exclusively refers to tail-chasing – or 'spinning', when the behaviour is not necessarily focussed towards the tail – in clinical contexts, because information technology can indicate welfare problems of varying severity, e.g. [3], [4], [five]. The most common reported diagnosis is canine compulsive disorder [6], [7], but other conditions, such as dermatitis or anal sacculitis [8], are also reported. Even in otherwise healthy dogs, the behaviour could indicate externally triggered welfare issues including lack of stimulation ('boredom'), insufficient do, or diverse stressful situations [4], [7], [9]. Nevertheless, tail-chasing can simply comprise play or exercise in many dogs, and these 'normal' tail-chasers have never still been included in scientific publications, partly because the desultory nature of the behaviour makes it difficult to study.

Clinical texts, e.one thousand. [3], [4], [10], [xi], often propose that compulsive tail-chasing develops from repeated exposure to triggering events or situations, simply the behaviour gradually becomes dissociated from the original trigger, occurring ever more frequently in increasingly diverse contexts. In other words, the behaviour might develop through a vicious cycle. Like many stereotypic behaviours, tail-chasing can sometimes exist temporarily eliminated past the opioid blocker, naloxone [12]. Attempted treatments for compulsive tail-chasing include behavioural therapy alongside drugs, including the tricyclic antidepressant, clomipramine, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine [6], [9], and the NMDA receptor blocker, memantine [7]. Tail-amputation has no reported success, and the problem tin can be so intractable, and distressing for the owners, that dogs are euthanased [7], [12]. Indeed, all 32 dogs in Blackshaw et al.'s [12] report – the largest report to engagement – were euthanased due to the persistence of their condition.

Several breeds are decumbent to compulsive tail-chasing, including Balderdash Terriers [12], High german Shepherds [6] and Anatolian sheepdogs [ix]. However, the sample sizes of clinical studies to date accept been too small to rule out high propensities in other breeds too, such as Jack Russells and Due west Highland White Terriers [12]. Breed differences could arise from environmental (eastward.yard. opportunities to exercise) and/or genetic factors. If the latter, the behaviour could have been artificially selected for, even indirectly if tail-chasing is linked with a desirable characteristic, as with many inherited defects [xiii].

Despite the general renown of the behaviour and its potential severity in clinical cases, piddling is known about tail-chasing in home contexts or when no clinical causes have been diagnosed. Yet, a search for "dog chasing tail" on the nearly popular video-sharing website [fourteen], YouTube™, returned near 3500 hits in 2010. These videos provide a new opportunity for a hitherto untapped insight into tail-chasing in non-clinical contexts, and will include many 'normal' dogs (those with no relevant clinical diagnosis). For the kickoff time, a large sample size is rapidly available and economically feasible. Furthermore, the videos reveal environments and contexts in which tail-chasing occurs, often together with audible and written responses of human observers (Figure ane).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is pone.0026553.g001.jpg

Screenshot of a video of a Golden Retriever chasing its tail on YouTube™.

The sidebar on the right too offers views links to related videos, showing a thumbnail of the video content, the video title, and the number of times the video has been viewed. The usernames are withheld here for privacy reasons, but on YouTube™ they are hyperlinked to the uploaders' homepages, which unremarkably incorporate information about their age, sex, country, and their other videos.

Despite the increasing accessibility of broadband and video cameras/phones to a wide demographic, the dogs and humans on YouTube™ will not represent all dogs and humans; indeed truly representative sampling eludes most population studies. Dogs that tail-chase very rarely are likely to be under-represented, as videographers would take to catch the behaviour at exactly the right place and time. Conversely, dogs with clinical diagnoses may as well be under-represented if owners are embarrassed (simply not if they wish to raise sensation). Thus, the tail-chasing dogs on YouTube™ should approximately represent the heart of the normal distribution of dogs that chase their tails at some bespeak in their lives. As with other survey methods, the employ of video-sharing websites requires similar caution in generalizing conclusions beyond the sample population, because the populations are commonly non-random and self-selecting to some extent. However, data from video-sharing websites reflects straight observed behaviour (rather than relying on respondents' descriptions), and data are unprompted past the researcher, so they are less likely to be biased towards the study purposes.

To date, video-sharing websites, such as YouTube™, have been studied regarding their potential for disseminating information to the public, in contexts including tobacco use [15], immunization [16] and sunbed use [17]. More recently, the actual video content has begun to be explored epidemiologically, providing insight into an asphyxiation 'game' in teenagers (using 65 video clips) [18], and into dietary letters given by adults to children playing with toy kitchens (115 clips) [nineteen]. The current study goes further, using a larger sample size, plus a control group to examine the characteristics of and responses to tail-chasing in domestic dogs.

My aims were to describe (i) canine breed/morphological and (two) behavioural characteristics, and the (iii) animate being welfare implications and (4) broad environmental contexts, associated with tail-chasing; and also (v) to describe human responses to information technology on YouTube™. I made no clinical diagnoses from the videos, but could broadly infer certain animal welfare implications from visible injuries and characteristics usually associated with perseverative abnormal behaviours, including both frequent performance and persistence in the face up of distraction.

Methods

Clarification of tail-chasing videos

I identified tail-chasing videos using the search term "dog chasing tail" on YouTube, which returned 3340 hits in Nov 2009. The videos were continually but gradually shuffled past YouTube'southward confidential search algorithms. Between Nov 2009 and August 2010, I collected information from the first 400 videos of the returned hits, field of study to the post-obit exclusion criteria: but one video was used per 'uploader' (person who uploaded a video to their YouTube™ account); and very nighttime or pixelated videos, or those not showing a domestic canis familiaris tail-chasing or spinning were discarded; photographic collages, professional videos, and advertisements were excluded, and in video collages, just the kickoff continuous shot was used. It is worth noting that in some cases, the uploader may neither have owned the canis familiaris, nor have taken the footage themselves.

The following details were recorded from the videos (further details in Table S1):

  • Clip ID and URL

  • the reported sex activity, historic period and nationality of the uploader

  • dog breed, sexual activity and historic period

  • domestic dog tail morphology

  • relevant human and canis familiaris behaviour observed in the video (summarized in Tabular array one)

    Table 1

    Brief clarification of behavioural information collected from YouTube, and associations between them.

    Behavioural feature Description Proportion of videos showing the characteristic (excluding videos with missing values) Significant associations (↑ = positive association; ↓ = negative association Odds ratio +/− S.E.; DF; P-value
    Tail-chasing frequency as indicated by uploader comments* 'Habitual' (east.1000. daily, "all the time", "a lot", "spends hours" tail-chasing, the dog is "obsessed");'Periodic' (e.g. "from time to fourth dimension", "regularly", "[the dog] unremarkably tail-chases when…");or 'Rare' (east.g. "[the dog] rarely does this", I "managed to catch" the canis familiaris tail-chasing) Habitual: 26/86 (30.2%);Periodic: 49/86 (57.0%);Rare: 11/86 (12.8%) ↑Difficult to distract 8.06+/−2.50; nine; 0.049
    " " " ↑ 'Stupid' in uploader comments 6.52+/−2.33; 23; 0.037
    Difficult to distract The dog did not end chasing for more than than 5 southward despite a potential distraction (eastward.g. the owner allowable the dog to do something other than tail-chase, a sudden noise, or the dog collided with something hard enough to impede its progress) 76/198 (38.4%) ↓Play 0.16+/−1.seventy; 102; 0.001
    " " " ↓Encouragement 0.28+/−1.twoscore; 102; 0.000
    " " " ↑ 'Funny' in public comments 6.82+/−ii.09; 24; 0.016
    " " " As well see Habitual tail-chasing frequency -
    Vocalisations heard during or within 5 s of tail-chasing Barking 54/366 (fourteen.viii%) ↓Television and computer apply 0.30+/−one.51; 201; 0.004
    " " " ↑Tail wagging 2.30+/−1.45; 201; 0.026
    " Growling 75/353 (21.two%) ↑Hunter Group (Parker et al., 2007) 2.66+/−1.63; 83; 0.050
    " " " ↑Age (i.due east. adults) 2.30+/−1.40; 206; 0.013
    " Whining iv/354 (1.1%) (too rare to exam) -
    Collision Canis familiaris collided with an object during or up to 30 s after tail-chasing 101/393 (25.7%) ↓Play 0.37+/−1.53; 262; 0.019
    " " " ↑Laughter two.12+/−1.32; 230; 0.007
    Play behaviour Inside five s of a chasing bout, the canis familiaris exhibits a play bow (characteristic posture with the forelegs extended on the basis), object play (manipulation of a toy or other available object), social play (with homo or conspecific), or locomotor play (e.g., bounding, rolling) 66/389 (17.0%) ↑Tail wagging 3.89+/−1.40; 259; 0.000
    " " " ↓Historic period 0.24+/−one.39; 259; 0.000
    " " " ↑Outside 3.26+/−ane.63; 260; 0.016
    " " " ↓Funny 0.04+/−3.60; 68; 0.023
    " " " Too see Difficult to distract, and Collisions -
    Tail wagging Dog rhythmically moves its tail laterally at least twice in each management within 5 due south of a chasing bout, rather than it remaining inanimate or moving irregularly 135/393 (25.seven%) ↑Age 2.77+/−1.36; 207; 0.001
    " " " ↑Television and computer use ii.15+/−1.33; 237; 0.008
    " " " ↑Mastiff-terriers 2.67+/−1.63; 84; 0.046
    " " " Also see Play Behaviour and Barking -
    Mouths tail Dog is conspicuously seen to seize with teeth, lick or hold the tail or hindquarters/hind leg in its mouth for at least 1 south 248/392 (63.iii%) ↑Laughter 1.78+/−i.27; 235; 0.018
    " " " ↑'Stupid' in uploader comments 4.16+/−1.67; 154; 0.006

  • environmental context (indoors or outdoors; television switched on, off or unknown)

  • relevant descriptive comments past the uploader and viewers (summarised in Table 2).

    Tabular array 2

    Human encouragement and responses to tail-chasing in dogs on YouTube™.

    Man response to tail-chasing (n = number of valid videos) Proportion of videos (excluding videos with missing values) Examples or synonyms (where relevant)
    Human behaviour - -
    Laughter 199/362 (55.0%) Female: 66.4%; male eighteen.half-dozen%; both sexes: 15.0%
    Exact encouragement 119/362 (32.9%) "Get your tail!", "Become it!"
    'Growling' at domestic dog 6/321 (ane.9%)
    Physical manipulation 74/371 (nineteen.9%) Placing the tail in the oral fissure, pulling or pinching the tail, waving the tail most the dog'due south face, pushing the hindquarters
    Tail zipper 14/371 (iii.8%) Attaching hair bands, dog toys or treats, a canteen, a section of plastic piping, or cord to the tail
    Exact praise 12/362 (3.3%) "Good dog", "Good girl/male child", and other variants
    Physical praise ii/371 (0.6%) Patting or stroking the dog, or feeding it a treat, after a chasing tour
    Uploader description - -
    'Funny' 149/253 (58.ix%) "Funny", "haha", "lol" (laugh out loud), "hilarious", "comedy", "humour", "XD" (a laughing emoticon), "lmao" (laugh my ass off)
    'Crazy' 65/250 (26.0%) "Crazy", "mad" (but non "gets mad" or "mad at" every bit these indicate perceived anger), "insane", "mental", "bedlamite", "nuts", "psycho", "nutcase"
    'Cute' 47/250 (eighteen.viii%) "Beautiful", "cutie", "sweet", "aww", "adorable"
    'Stupid' 38/251 (fifteen.ane%) "Stupid", "retard/retarded", "nerd", "dumb", "duh/doh", "dumbass", "dopey", "idiot", "moron"
    'Silly' 28/250 (xi.2%) "Silly", "Goofy"
    'Fun' 19/250 (7.vi%) "Fun", "amusing", "entertainment"
    'Play' 12/250 (4.viii%) "Play", "playing", "game", "playful"
    'Dizzy' xi/250 (4.four%) "Dizzy"
    'Weird' 10/250 (4.0%) "Weird"
    'Tricks' eight/249 (3.two%) Tail-chasing is the dog'south "party play tricks"
    'Awesome' 8/250 (3.2%) "Crawly", "cool", "amazing", "wow"
    'Bored' five/250 (2.0%) "Bored"
    'Hyper' 4/250 (one.half dozen%) "Hyper", "hyperactive", "energetic"
    Other Northward/A Angry, archetype, clever, confused, crack upwards, curious, dirty, relish, freak, frenzy, frustrated, inner battle, itchy, loser, nerd, overnice, obsessed (x 2), possessed, serious problems, smart, spaz, tipsy, torture, wild, wrong, "I honey that my canis familiaris really chases her tail"
    Explanations given N/A [The dog…] "loves/likes to tail-chase" (x6), "hates his tail", is "entertaining herself", is "having fun", is "either bored or has high cholesterol", "enjoys the dizziness", does it "out of dominance", "puts on a little show", "needs prozac", "chases on command" (x2), is "yet a puppy", "hasn't figured [his tail] is connected to him", is showing "typical dog behaviour", is playing "his favourite game"
    Viewer comments - -
    'Funny' 64/138 (46.0%) Equally for 'Uploader description', plus "hilarious"
    'Cute' 58/138 (41.seven%) Equally for 'Uploader description'
    'Awesome' 16/138 (11.5%) As for 'Uploader description', plus "impressive"
    'Stupid' 11/138 (7.nine%) As for 'Uploader description', plus "daft", "not that smart"
    'Crazy' 4/138 (3.6%) As for 'Uploader description', plus "bonkers"
    Other N/A "Corking" (x2), "excellent", "squeamish" (x3), "priceless", "entertaining", "weird", "gay", "fun" (x2), "cruel", "animal abuse", "I wonder why they exercise that", "My dog does/did that too" (x7), "My dog bites his tail to the point of bleeding", "My dog spins/chases faster than yours" (x4), "Dog chasing tail never gets erstwhile", "I want your canis familiaris", "I've never seen a dog practise that", "I feel bad for him", "repetitive behaviours need to be checked by a vet", "I honey it when dogs and cats practise that"
    Explanations given N/A [The dog…] has "high cholesterol" (x2), has "canine compulsive disorder", is in "pain/discomfort", has "Schizophrenia", needs "the doggie chiropractor", is "happy", needs "toys", "doesn't know [the tail] is function of their torso yet", has an "itchy tail", has "worms", is "hyper", is "bored", is "showing off", has "a flea stuck in his tail"

I structurally defined all the behaviours scored according to an ethogram (Table S1 and S2), and systematically categorized human comments later data collection using defined criteria (Table 2).

Comparisons of tail morphology and environmental context in breed-matched controls

I compared tail-chasing videos against 400 breed-matched command (not-tail-chasing) videos, to investigate associations between tail-chasing and tail morphology, such every bit whether docked tails were more or less frequently seen in tail-chasing versus control videos. The control videos were also used to identify whether dogs were more frequently indoors, and whether a goggle box, computer, radio or music was switched on when tail-chasing. Breed- and age-matching was important because these factors affect the likelihood that dogs are taken outdoors and that their tails are docked. My command search terms were "[dog brood name]"+"dog" or "puppy" as advisable to match each tail-chasing video. The first control video non withal scored for that breed was used in each case. Exclusion criteria were as before, just additionally, videos were excluded if the tail could non be clearly seen; if the control video included tail-chasing or spinning; or if the video seemed to involve brute cruelty, for ethical reasons (e.g. dog fights). The ensuing control videos included diverse footage: for example, dogs playing, vocalising, performing 'tricks', eating, dreaming, exercising, exploring novel stimuli, or interacting with other dogs, other pets, or humans.

Observer reliability

A subset of the variables described in Table S2 & S3, encompassing the more subjective aspects of domestic dog and man behaviour, were checked for inter- and intra-observer reliability using 10% of the tail-chasing videos. Kappa observer reliability statistics are meaningless in overly homogenous samples [20]–[22], so Hoehler [21] suggests that investigators should 'concentrate on obtaining populations with trait prevalence near 50% rather than searching for statistical methods to rescue inefficient experiments." The 40 videos were therefore selected (using my ratings as the principal observer) to optimize the prevalence alphabetize for as many variables every bit possible, avoiding overly homogenous samples and allowing even rare scores to exist tested [20], [21]. For case, only 46 videos had comments revealing the dog's tail-chasing frequency besides as having a potentially distracting event occurring during the video, so 35 of these videos were included in the reliability sample (representing habitual, periodic and rare tail-chasing, in both perseverative (difficult to distract) and non-perseverative dogs). This meant that for key variables, such as tail-chasing frequency, distractibility, or play behaviour, the prevalence index was <0.4 [twenty], and then no variable was too rare to test.

The order in which videos were re-watched was randomized. The other observer (OHB; meet Acknowledgements) was an experienced observer of animal behaviour, and was blind to the hypotheses existence tested. He received 5 practice videos for which he could see my original scores, and he was given a detailed description of the scoring criteria for each variable (Table S2), but he received no other preparation.

Intra- and inter-observer agreement was tested using Fleiss' Kappa statistics for binary variables, and Kendall'due south Due west for ordinal variables (Minitab fifteen). Thresholds for clinical acceptability were defined every bit Moderate (κ or W≥0.iv), Substantial (≥0.6), or Excellent (≥0.viii) according to convention, due east.g. [22]. Only scores for panting behaviour failed to achieve at least Moderate reliability, so results for that variable are not reported. The observer reliability scores are shown in Tabular array S3.

Statistical methods

Within the 400 tail-chasing videos, I tested associations between specific tail-chasing behaviours and their predictors (other behaviours, canis familiaris characteristics, and human responses) using generalized linear mixed models (glmmPQL and glmmML in R). I included brood equally a random factor in every model to control for non-independence of similar dogs, and compared breed groups (divers co-ordinate to both the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland Kennel Club and genetic groupings institute past Parker et al. [23]) either as random or equally stock-still factors in alternative models. Breed was nested within breed group. Video-length was e'er included, because certain events (due east.g. play behaviour or potential distractions) will have been more likely to be observed in longer videos. For analyses of clinically relevant predictors, dogs with objects attached to their tails were excluded, because their tail-chasing was not necessarily ever a self-initiated behaviour.

I besides used generalized linear mixed models, as before, to compare tail-chasing and control videos. In these analyses, tail morphology, the in- or outdoor location, and idiot box/computer/radio activity were used equally predictors.

I selected models using Akaike data criteria, and identified (and thus avoided) multicollinearity using inflated standard error terms. The α-level for statistical significance was set at P≤0.05 in this exploratory study [24]; the number of independent tests for each dependent variable ranged from half-dozen to 16, depending on the hypotheses relating to that variable. Of the total 76 tests carried out, just under four (5%) of the seemingly pregnant results tin can therefore be expected to exist Type I errors, merely follow upwards studies will be required to reveal which results can and cannot be replicated. No correction for multiple testing has been done hither, considering the risk of Type II errors, failing to report potentially significant results, is considered more serious in exploratory studies than that of Type I errors [24].

Results

Uploader and video characteristics

Of the 400 uploaders of the tail-chasing videos, 69.0% were from the The states, 13.8% from the UK, 5.8% from Canada, and 9.8% from 19 other countries. There was no significant sex bias in uploaders: 30% were female, 24% male and 46% undeclared (Binomial exam of 119 females of the 215 alleged: P = 0.133). The mean (s.due east.) reported age of uploaders was 27.five+/−0.44, ranging between xi and 68 years.

The mean tail-chasing video length was 59.8+/−2.viii s. Each video had a hateful of 863+/−197 viewings past May 2011 (maximum = 58,613), giving a cumulative viewing figure of 313,225 for the 400 videos included here.

Tail-chasing characteristics and their associations

Associations between canis familiaris behaviour characteristics and context (excluding dogs with objects fastened to their tails) are shown in Tabular array 1. Of the 86 tail-chasing videos that had comments describing the frequency of tail-chasing, about xxx% of dogs were stated as chasing their tails habitually (east.g. daily or 'all the time', rather than 'periodically' or 'rarely' (Table one; Tabular array S1), which is a clinical criterion for classifying tail-chasing as compulsive [7], [25]).

Approximately 38% of dogs appeared difficult to distract, or 'perseverative' during tail-chasing. Perseverative dogs were more likely to tail-chase habitually and to collide with objects when tail-chasing, and they were less likely to testify play behaviours than were other tail-chasing dogs (Table 1). Hair-loss from the tail or hind-quarters was seen in ane.25% of the tail-chasing dogs and there were no comments that suggested uploaders or viewers considered this every bit an indication of the tail-chasing being a potential clinical trouble.

Play behaviours (defined in Table 1) were interspersed with tail-chasing bouts in 17% of videos, and were more likely to exist seen in puppies than older dogs. When indoors, tail-chasing was less probable to include play behaviour than when outdoors, and with a screen switched on, tail-chasing dogs were less likely to bark but more likely to wag their tails (Tabular array 1).

Problematic tail-chasing (equally indicated by the per centum of all tail-chasing videos that appeared perseverative or habitual per breed group) was distributed widely across diverse Kennel Gild breed groups (Table iii). The highest proportion of perseverative tail-chasing was observed in toy breeds (56% of videos), followed by crossbreeds (43%) and terriers and working dogs (42% of both), but effectually one quarter of videos of gundogs, hounds, and utility breeds besides showed bear witness for perseveration. Few breed groups contained enough videos to enable assessment of tail-chasing frequency, but of those with at to the lowest degree ten such clips, the highest proportion of habitual tail-chasing was observed in crossbreeds (52%) and terriers (38%). The five dogs with visible hair-loss or injury to the tail or hindquarters comprised two High german Shepherds, 1 Labrador-Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross, one Labrador and 1 Parsons Jack Russell Terrier.

Tabular array three

Perseverative and habitual tail-chasing described by Kennel Club group.

Kennel Society Breed grouping Total tail-chasing videos (n) Perseveration Tail-chasing frequency
Distractible (n) Perseverative (n) Percentage perseverative Breeds exhibiting perseveration Rare (n) Periodic (due north) Habitual (n) Percentage habitual Breeds exhibiting habitual tail-chasing
Gundog 56 22 8 26.7 Goldendoodle, Golden Retriever, Labrador 2 nine 3 21.iv Labrador, Springer Spaniel
Hound 21 9 3 25.0 Beagle, Dachshund 1 1 0 0.0 Northward/A
Pastoral 28 5 0 0.0 Due north/A i 5 ane 14.3 Shetland Sheepdog
Terrier 86 28 twenty 41.seven American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Patterdale Terrier, Pitbull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Yorkshire Terrier 3 7 6 37.5 American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Patterdale Terrier, Pitbull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Toy 56 xi 14 56.0 Chihuahua, Havenese, Papillon, Pekingese, Pug iii ten 2 13.3 Chihuahua, Shih Tzu
Utility 29 10 3 23.1 Lhasa Apso, Shih Tzu 0 4 2 33.3 Lhasa Apso
Working canis familiaris 24 7 v 41.vii Bernese Mountain Domestic dog, Boxer 1 two 0 0.0 N/A
Crossbreeds 100 30 23 43.iv N/A 0 11 12 52.two N/A

Human responses and descriptions of tail-chasing videos

While 69.three% of tail-chasing videos were categorized every bit 'Pets and Animals', eighteen.eight% were categorized every bit 'One-act' and half dozen.3% as 'Entertainment'.

Human responses to tail-chasing are shown in Tabular array 2. In 55% of videos, laughter could be heard, and this was significantly more than likely to be female person (in 81.half-dozen% of 114 clips with only one sex laughing; Binomial test: P<0.001). Laughter was positively associated with encouragement of the dog (Odds +/− S.E. = 2.83+/−one.28; DF = 234; P<0.001), simply there were no meaning associations with tail-chasing frequency or perseveration. Verbal or concrete encouragement or praise was noted in 43% of videos, including attaching objects to the tail in about 4% of videos (Table 2). Uploaders described 59% of tail-chasing videos as 'Funny', 26% equally 'Crazy', xix% as 'Cute' and 15% every bit 'Stupid'. Similarly, 46% of videos with comments from viewers were described as 'Funny' past the viewers, and 42% as 'Cute'.

Viewers were vi.eight times more likely to describe perseverative dogs as 'Funny' (defined in Tabular array two) compared with more easily distracted dogs. Uploaders described dogs that tail-chased habitually as 'Stupid' (defined in Table 2) 6.5 times more ofttimes than other dogs. Examples of uploader comments describing habitual chasing are equally follows: "Ya it's funny she does this all the time:)"; "… my puppy does this ALL THE Time. I've never seen a dog hunt its tail then much. Peradventure he enjoys the dizzyness??"; "This is just 1/100th of the allotted time [my dog] spends chasing his tail every solar day"; "This is him on a normal day. Chasing His Tail, And so eats his food, Watches a little TV, Chase's his tail some more and then swallow…"; and (aural, rather than written) "It's amazing how long he'll do that for… he never stops… it's your favourite game; you have it everywhere with you lot".

In nine videos (2.3%), at least one annotate offered clinical explanations for the behaviour or suggested that the dog should be checked past a veterinarian (three comments past uploaders, and seven videos had at least 1 such comment by viewers). Nonetheless, none of the descriptions indicated that uploaders had posted their video on YouTube™ specifically to raise sensation of clinical aspects of tail-chasing.

Comparisons of ecology context and tail morphology confronting brood-matched controls

Videos showing tail-chasing were approximately 6.v times less likely to exist outdoors than were breed- and age-matched control videos (8.eight% of tail-chasing videos were outdoors versus 38.8% of controls; Odds +/− Southward.Due east = 0.fifteen+/−1.25; DF = 317; P<0.001); and when indoors, tail-chasing videos were over three times more probable to show a television or figurer switched on than were controls (32.i% of indoor tail-chasing videos showed one switched on versus 9.ane% of controls; Odds +/− Southward.Due east. = 3.35+/−1.34; DF = 106; P<0.001).

Control and tail-chasing videos showed no pregnant differences in tail morphology, such as length, docking, or hair-blazon (initial analyses had suggested that tails were longer in tail-chasing than command videos [26], but this human relationship proved not to be robust when other significant variables were included in the final statistical models).

Give-and-take

Descriptions of tail-chasing characteristics, context and human responses to information technology

The results here reveal new clinically relevant information that has been difficult to detect previously. Approximately ane third of the dogs with complete data tail-chased habitually or appeared perseverative, and were significantly more than likely than other tail-chasers to be described every bit 'Stupid' or 'Funny', respectively. Comments suggesting clinical explanations for habitual, perseverative tail-chasing were only seen on ii.iii% of videos, so it seems that public awareness must indeed be very depression. Regardless of clinical signs, near i quarter (25.1%) of tail-chasing videos were classified as One-act or Entertainment, laughter was recorded in over half (55%) of videos, and encouragement in 43%; and nigh half of viewer comments described the videos as 'funny' or 'cute'. The vast and ever growing numbers of viewings that these and similar videos receive on YouTube™ will likely reinforce these perceptions, normalising tail-chasing behaviour still further [eighteen].

The findings therefore indicate a gulf between public perception and indicators of poor welfare in tail-chasing dogs. This implies that many pathological tail-chasers may go untreated, and the behaviour is widely assumed to exist normal and amusing regardless of its persistence. These results are maybe not surprising considering that some owners also incorrectly perceive the – arguably less ambiguous – separation-related behaviours in their dogs (barking, whining, howling, scratching the door, destructive behaviour and inappropriate elimination) to indicate neutral or even positive welfare [27]. Similarly, owners tin can describe frequent signs of animate difficulties in their brachycephalic (short-cage) dogs, but nearly later on report that this not a 'breathing trouble', being normal for the brood [28]. It appears that, although dogs seem readily to understand aspects of human behaviour [29], [30], humans practice not necessarily interpret all of import aspects of canine behaviour accurately.

Results in Table 3 show that problematic tail-chasing as a proportion of all the tail-chasing videos per breed grouping was prevalent in Bull Terrier breeds, consistent with clinical literature [4], [9], [12], but it was likewise widely distributed across other breed groups, including Toy and other groups picayune represented in studies to engagement. The prevalences here should not be taken as absolute values, because some breeds may be owned past a more than technologically agile demographic than others, and might thus exist over represented on YouTube™. Also, if owners of breeds known to tail-chase compulsively are more aware of the clinical implications of this behaviour than other owners, they may exist reluctant to post videos of it (e.one thousand. being embarrassed or saddened by it), and then those breeds could be nether-represented. Nevertheless, the results point the degrees to which tail-chasing videos testify problematic signs in the unlike breed groups and suggest that information technology would exist worthwhile investigating whether at that place are hitherto unrecognized clinical implications of tail-chasing beyond diverse breeds. Mayhap behavioural anomalies in small or toy dogs may be less likely to be referred for veterinary attention than in larger, heavier breeds, whose behaviour may be more disruptive and obviously problematic to the owners. A previous survey indicated that owners of smaller dogs may too exist less attentive to their dogs' behaviour and preparation in general [31].

In 17% of videos play behaviours were interspersed with tail-chasing; playing was less likely in perseverative dogs, just more likely in puppies than developed dogs. This is consistent with tail-chasing sometimes forming office of play, specially in puppies [4]. In these cases, as long as dogs infrequently hunt their tails, owners need not necessarily be concerned about their dog's tail-chasing because play is ofttimes (but not e'er) an indicator of positive welfare [32]. A caveat is that fifty-fifty play tin can be a response to stress, lack of practice or under-stimulation (a 'do-it-yourself enrichment', c.f. [33]), so owners should assess the context of the behaviour in instance the trigger could exist a negative one.

Encouragement of tail-chasing was recorded in 43% of videos, and laughter, which could too inadvertently be reinforcing for dogs, was heard in 55% of videos. The true prevalence of encouragement and laughter, will depend on how frequently people manipulate the domestic dog for the film (eastward.chiliad. attaching objects to the tail), play up to the photographic camera, or deliberately remain repose or offscreen during filming. Some encouragement seen on YouTube™ may accept straight distressed the dogs: in almost 2% of videos, humans 'growled' at dogs, and nearly xx% of people physically manipulated the tail (Table 2), often appearing to pull or pinch it with considerable force. In any case, whether reinforcement is through negative or positive means, it should exist minimized to prevent tail-chasing from condign compulsive. Equally, frequent tail-chasing must non be punished or prevented without addressing its crusade, as this can increment stress and poor welfare in the afflicted domestic dog, e.m. [34].

Comparisons of ecology context and tail morphology in breed-matched controls

Compared with brood- and age-matched controls, tail-chasing videos were approximately 6.5 times less likely to be outdoors, and – when indoors – televisions or computers (simply not radios or music players) were more frequently switched on. The breed- and historic period-matching was intended to control for some breeds being kept indoors to a greater extent than others. However, the environmental differences could nonetheless be Blazon I errors (falsely significant) if, for example, tail-chasing were ane of the few canine behaviours that people tend to record indoors while watching television, rather than information technology being performed more in that situation per se. Some control videos were by nature likely to be filmed outdoors, such as dogs exercising or interacting with other dogs, but others showed more typically indoor activities, such as eating, dreaming, or interacting with other pets, so further research will be necessary to confirm the ecology contexts of tail-chasing.

Nevertheless, the observed ecology differences are consistent with tail-chasing being triggered past a lack of practice, nether-stimulation, and/or insufficient attention from humans [4], [vii], [9], [eleven]. If so, the behaviour might indeed predominantly occur when dogs are indoors while humans are engaged in the sedate, non-interactive pastimes of telly and estimator use. Lack of exercise, stimulation and attention as triggers for tail-chasing have plain not notwithstanding been tested empirically. If tail-chasing genuinely is associated with bereft practice, this would also be consistent with tail-chasing dogs having raised cholesterol levels, as found by Yalcin et al. [25].

The usual handling for compulsive tail-chasing is drug therapy combined with behavioural therapy, such every bit increased possessor attending and walks; the drugs may treat the clinical signs but behavioural change addresses the crusade of the problem. However, possessor compliance with behavioural recommendations is often poor, e.g. [vii], and in full general many dogs are walked very seldom (e.g. fewer than one-half of Australian owners surveyed walked their dogs at all [35], and seventy% of dogs with acral lick dermatitis were never walked [36]). The finding that tail-chasing on YouTube™ appears to occur predominantly indoors with screens switched on might therefore reinforce the importance of exercise and stimulation for dogs.

Tail morphology and docking showed no meaning differences betwixt tail-chasing and control videos. A previous pocket-size study [37] constitute neuromas in the docked tails of dogs showing 'tail-directed behaviour', so neuromas should be considered equally a potential cause of tail-chasing in docked dogs, but no such association was institute here (indeed the non-significant tendency was in the opposite direction). A report focussing on breeds with often docked tails will exist necessary to investigate whether a pregnant clan exists.

Conclusions

In summary, YouTube™ has offered the first big, study population of dogs chasing their tails in non-clinical contexts. Approximately one third of the dogs showed signs of clinical relevance, but this was rarely recognised openly by uploaders or viewers; indeed, dogs showing problematic tail-chasing were more likely than other dogs to be described as 'Stupid' or 'Funny'. In 43% of videos tail-chasing was actively encouraged, which could risk reinforcing the behaviour excessively, and in some cases it included rough treatment or goading the domestic dog. The study besides reveals that diverse dog breeds chase their tails on YouTube™, and that this seems predominantly to occur indoors when televisions or computers are switched on.

Futurity research could record more than particular about the clinical signs: for instance, details of tail-mouthing behaviour could signal tail or hindquarter discomfort, and persistently chasing in one direction could aid diagnose compulsivity [12]. It will also be necessary to determine what actually triggers tail-chasing, to obtain meaningful prevalences of pathological and non-pathological tail-chasing, and to identify the most reliable indicators of whether the behaviour is of welfare concern. in the meantime, awareness of the clinical implications of frequent tail-chasing should exist increased in the public domain if the associated canine welfare problems are to be addressed.

Supporting Information

Table S1

Condensed descriptions of all the data collected apropos YouTube™ videos of dogs chasing their tails. * indicates that the information were also collected for breed-matched control videos.

(DOC)

Table S2

The detailed description of criteria for scoring the presence or absence of particular characteristics in YouTube™ videos of dogs chasing their tails. This includes a subset of the behavioural ethogram used to score the dog behaviour throughout the study. This summary was sent to the animal behaviour expert (OHB) who scored the xl videos to allow inter-observer reliability to exist tested.

(Md)

Table S3

Intra- and inter-observer reliability for selected variables describing dogs chasing their tails on YouTube™. For each variable, the raw percentage agreement (%), the prevalence alphabetize (P.I.) and the κ value (for categorical variables) or W value (for ordinal variables) is shown. * indicates that the κ value fell below the clinically acceptable threshold of 0.4 (due east.g. Sim & Wright, 2005), so the variable should be discarded from farther analysis. ¥ indicates that the variable is ordinal, rather than categorical.

(Medico)

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Dr Oliver H. Burman for watching and behaviour-scoring the videos to permit testing for inter-observer reliability. Thanks likewise to Drs Holger Volk, Oliver H. Burman, Alex A. S. Weir, Prof. Alan Wilson and the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the manuscript. I would like to acknowledge Verity J. Browning, who carried out her Bioveterinary Sciences Concluding Honours projection on part of this discipline under my supervision at the Regal Veterinary College, which finer acted as a pilot for this study. The RVC has approved this manuscript (ID number: P/VCS/000147/) for publication.

Footnotes

Competing Interests: The authors take declared that no competing interests be.

Funding: The current study was carried out while the author was supported by a Wellcome Trust 'Value in People' Award (www.wellcome.air-conditioning.uk). The funders had no role in written report design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or training of the manuscript.

References

ane. Small A. World'south Greatest Archetype Themes. Harlow: Alfred Publishing Company; 1994. [Google Scholar]

2. Rowling JK. Chapter x. Harry Potter and the Society of the Phoenix. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC; 2003. 165 [Google Scholar]

three. Bowen J, Heath Due south. Behaviour Bug in Small Animals: Practical Advice for the Veterinary Team. Philadelphia: Saunders Ltd; 2005. 288 [Google Scholar]

4. Hartigan PJ. Compulsive tail chasing in the canis familiaris: A mini-review. Ir Vet J. 2000;53:261–264. [Google Scholar]

5. Moon-Fanelli AA, Dodman NH. Description and development of compulsive tail chasing in terriers and response to clomipramine handling. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1998;212:1252–1257. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Irimajiri M, Luescher AU, Douglass K, Robertson-Plouch C, Zimmermann A, et al. Randomized, controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of fluoxetine for treatment of compulsive disorders in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009;235:705–709. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

vii. Schneider BM, Dodman NH, Maranda L. Use of memantine in handling of canine compulsive disorders. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2009;four:118–126. [Google Scholar]

8. Halnan CRE. The diagnosis of anal sacculitis in the dog. J Small Anim Pract. 1976;17:527–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Yalcin E. Comparison of clomipramine and fluoxetine handling of dogs with tail chasing. Tierärztliche Praxis Kleintiere. 2010;2010:295–299. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

x. Luescher AU. Diagnosis and direction of compulsive disorders in dogs and cats. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract. 2004;19:233–239. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Lindsay SR. Excessive Beliefs. In: Lindsay SR, editor. Handbook of Practical Dog Beliefs and Training, Book 2: Etiology and Assessment of Behavior Bug. Iowa State University Press; 2001. pp. 131–159. [Google Scholar]

12. Blackshaw JK, Sutton RH, Boyhan MA. Tail chasing or circling beliefs in dogs. Canine Pract. 1994;19:vii–11. [Google Scholar]

13. Summers JF, Diesel M, Asher 50, McGreevy PD, Collins LM. Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Part 2: Disorders that are not related to breed standards. Vet J. 2010;183:39–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Cheng X, Dale C, Liu J. Understanding the characteristics of internet curt video sharing: YouTube as a case study. 2007;arXiv:07073670v1. [Google Scholar]

15. Freeman B, Chapman S. Is "YouTube" telling or selling y'all something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tob Control. 2007;16:207–210. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Keelan J, Pavri-Garcia V, Tomlinson G, Wilson K. YouTube every bit a source of information on immunization: a content analysis. J Am Med Assoc. 2007;298:2482–2484. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Hossler EW, Conroy MP. YouTube as a source of information on tanning bed utilise. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144:1395–1396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Linkletter M, Gordon K, Dooley J. The choking game and YouTube: a unsafe combination. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2010;49:274–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Lynch Chiliad. Playing with nutrient. A novel arroyo to understanding nutritional behaviour evolution. Appetite. 2010;54:591–594. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Burn CC, Weir AAS. Using prevalence indices to aid interpretation and comparison of agreement ratings betwixt 2 or more observers. Vet J. 2011;188:166–170. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Hoehler FK. Bias and prevalence effects on kappa viewed in terms of sensitivity and specificity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:499–503. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Sim J, Wright CC. The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Phys Ther. 2005;85:257–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Parker HG, Kukekova AV, Akey DT, Goldstein O, Kirkness EF, et al. Breed relationships facilitate fine-mapping studies: A seven.8-kb deletion cosegregates with Collie center anomaly across multiple dog breeds. Genome Res. 2007;17:1562–1571. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Bough R, Lange Due south. Adjusting for multiple testing–when and how? J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:343–349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Yalcin E, Ilcol YO, Batmaz H. Serum lipid concentrations in dogs with tail chasing. J Small-scale Anim Pract. 2009;l:133–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Burn CC, Browning VJ. Dog tail-chasing behaviour & homo responses to it: Preliminary insights from YouTube™ [poster presentation]. In: Lidfors L, Blokhuis H, Keeling Fifty, editors. 2010; Uppsala. Wageningen Academic Publishers; 165 [Google Scholar]

27. Mendl Thousand, Brooks J, Basse C, Burman O, Paul E, et al. Dogs showing separation-related behaviour exhibit a 'pessimistic' cognitive bias. Curr Biol. 2010;20:R839–R840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Packer RMA, Hendricks A, Axe JL, Burn CC. Preliminary indications of a lack of possessor recognition of clinical signs related to a conformational inherited disorder - a potential constraint to improving breeding practices in pedigree dogs. In: Kirkwood JK, Hubrecht R, Wickens Due south, editors. UFAW International Animal Welfare Symposium. Portsmouth: Universities Federation for Animal Welfare; 2011. [Google Scholar]

29. Miklosi A, Topal J, Csanyi V. Comparative social knowledge: what can dogs teach us? Anim Behav. 2004;67:995–1004. [Google Scholar]

30. Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J, Tomasello M. The early on ontogeny of homo-domestic dog advice. Anim Behav. 2008;75:1003–1014. [Google Scholar]

31. Arhant C, Bubna-Littitz H, Bartels A, Futschik A, Troxler J. Behaviour of smaller and larger dogs: Effects of training methods, inconsistency of owner behaviour and level of engagement in activities with the canis familiaris. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2010;123:131–142. [Google Scholar]

32. Held SDE, Špinka 1000. Creature play and animal welfare. Anim Behav. 2011;81:891–899. [Google Scholar]

33. Mason GJ, Latham NR. Tin can't stop, won't stop: is stereotypy a reliable animal welfare indicator? Anim Welf. 2004;xiii:57–69. [Google Scholar]

34. Mason GJ, Clubb R, Latham N, Vickery South. Why and how should nosotros utilize environmental enrichment to tackle stereotypic behaviour? Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007;102:163–188. [Google Scholar]

35. Bauman AE, Russell SJ, Furber SE, Dobson AJ. The epidemiology of canis familiaris walking: an unmet need for homo and canine health. Med J Aust. 2001;175:632–634. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Pereira JT, Larsson CE, Ramos D. Environmental, individual and triggering aspects of dogs presenting with psychogenic acral lick dermatitis. J Vet Behav Clin Appl Res. 2010;5:165–165. [Google Scholar]

37. Gross TL, Carr SH. Amputation neuroma of docked tails in dogs. Vet Path Online. 1990;27:61–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from PLoS Ane are provided hither courtesy of Public Library of Science

greercommayfuland.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3212522/

Post a Comment for "Tails Between Legs Lol My Internet Is Working Again Lmao"