SOURCES AND LIMITS
The method stays attached.
Primary studies from Finland, UBC and ELTE, a testing-methods review and professional welfare guidance support this site. They do not certify our explanations, compare your dog or endorse PawLine.
Junttila et al. (2022): a Finnish cognitive-task battery
Primary study: 1,002 selected dogs aged one to eight, with different per-task samples. Some breed differences, not an overall intelligence ranking. Most training histories were unavailable.
Read the source ↗Azadian and Protopopova (2024): hand-touch learning
Primary UBC study: 111 final completers in five clades, owner-guided remote testing. Prior familiarity, small groups, social context and exploratory multiple comparisons limit interpretation.
Read the source ↗Fugazza et al. (2025): functional object-label extension
Primary publisher paper: seven selected Gifted Word Learner dogs completed all phases. Functional label extension is not a result for all dogs, a human age or a global language score.
Read the source ↗Azadian and Protopopova (2026): repeat exposure
Primary follow-up: 105 dogs from the earlier hand-touch cohort, two occasions about thirty days apart. Average reversal performance improved, not every component. Not independent replication.
Read the source ↗Moser et al. (2024): behavioral-testing methods review
Scoping review of testing methods, standardization, prior experience, state, motivation and validity. English peer-reviewed scope and interpretive content analysis; not an exhaustive census or a dog assessment.
Read the source ↗AVSAB: Humane Dog Training position statement
Professional guidance: reward-based methods, welfare and the ability to opt out. The current AVSAB public page reaffirms this 2021 statement. No endorsement of this website is implied.
Read the source ↗AVSAB: current position statements
The 2025 board notice reaffirms reward-based-only guidance and rejects outdated, rescinded aversive advice. Guidance is not a review of Taskwise or PawLine.
Read the source ↗Related publications are not extra votes
The 2024 and 2026 UBC publications share the original hand-touch cohort. The later paper adds repeat exposure, not independent replication. A press release and a news story about the 2025 word learners also refer to one study, not three separate demonstrations.
Sample flow changes a statement
In the word-label paper, eleven dogs were recruited, ten participated after one exclusion, eight met the initial criterion and seven completed all phases. We identify the seven full completers when discussing the final finding. For the 2024 hand-touch paper, we use the clearly stated 111 final completers rather than its initial enrollment and exclusion counts, which do not arithmetically reconcile.
No clinical or expert review claimed
Editorial source checking is not an animal-cognition expert assessment or veterinary review. Research protocols are not reproduced as owner instructions. No home IQ score, human mental-age comparison, medical screen or training prescription is offered.