Humans can read dogs quite well

Unexpectedly dropped into a foreign land, one of the first problems to surface would more than likely be the inability to communicate.

The impossible task of asking questions not to mention understanding the responses would hinder virtually every step of the journey and, no doubt, would result in confusing and frustrating exchanges with the inhabitants of the strange land.

Luckily, communication barriers can be overcome, and in short time, gestures, expressions, and perhaps some pointing and grunting, would ease the challenges, at least a little.

It's not entirely different than the way humans and animals have learned to get things done.

Sure, animals learn our language and becoming sensitive to specific key words to the point where their humans have to spell "W-A-L-K" and "T-R-E-A-T" because to speak the words sets off a flurry of furry excitement.

And we humans learn, though to a less specific degree, learn some of their language as well, distinguishing easily enough between excited barks and cries of pain.

Neither side truly attempts to speak the other's language, and there are plenty of confusing moments — some pooches never quite understand where exactly the bathroom is or that it's rude to jump on and lick guests in the face — yet we do manage to bridge our differences and coexist.

Truthfully, not counting bathroom confusion, our pets probably do a better job of reading us than we do them.

The dog will put its ears back and go sit in the furthest corner of the house when the atmosphere is grouchy, yet if they have bad moods we probably never notice.

And nothing makes a tail wag like a big smile, yet if they wake up with a sunny disposition, chances are good we'll never know.

But apparently we humans aren't all bad, and actually do a pretty good job of understanding our dog's facial expressions.

In a recently published study, researchers found humans could correctly identify a dog's facial expressions.

The study was conducted by Dr. Tina Bloom, who photographed the expressions of a trained police dog named Mal after he had been exposed to different stimuli. The photos were then shown to a group of 50 volunteers — some experienced with dogs, some not.

When Mal saw a ball and smiled widely, 88 percent identified happiness, when he saw a "bad guy" and snarled, 70 percent recognized anger. When he was shown the toe nail clippers and his ears went back, 45 percent recognized that he was afraid, and when he was reprimanded and took on a crushed look, 37 percent understood he was sad.

Of course, with the defined facial structure of a Belgian shepherd and markings like eyebrows, which seem almost humanistic, Mal's expressions seem fairly clear and Bloom herself acknowledged her study only showed how people interpreted the expressions of one dog.

But the study contained a little surprising tidbit in the fact that the people who had less dog experience actually fared better in their perception of Mal's expressions than those who had more experience with dogs — when it came to anger anyway.

The less experienced were more able to identify Mal's negative and angry expressions, a difference Bloom chalked up to those with more experience being more likely to explain away or minimize a dog's anger.

By the same token, a human who is not accustomed to being around dogs is probably more easily intimidated, not entirely unlike a dog timid about humans when it hasn't spent much time with them.

Either way, if anything was proved by the result, it could be that human perspectives come from bias and show that humans tend to see what they choose or what they think they understand — but then again, especially when humans are involved, there's really no such thing as language without interpretation.

Sharna Johnson is a writer who is always searching for ponies. You can reach her at: [email protected] or on the web at:

insearchofponies.blogspot.com