www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN Cats learn the names of their friend

Humans communicate with each other through language, which enables us talk about things beyond
time and space. Do non-human animals learn to associate human speech with specific objects in
everyday life? We examined whether cats matched familiar cats’ names and faces (Exp.1) and human
family members’ names and faces (Exp.2). Cats were presented with a photo of the familiar cat’s face
on a laptop monitor after hearing the same cat’s name or another cat’s name called by the subject
cat’s owner (Exp.1) or an experimenter (Exp.2). Half of the trials were in a congruent condition where
the name and face matched, and half were in an incongruent (mismatch) condition. Results of Exp.1
showed that household cats paid attention to the monitor for longer in the incongruent condition,
suggesting an expectancy violation effect; however, café cats did not. In Exp.2, cats living in larger
human families were found to look at the monitor for increasingly longer durations in the incongruent
condition. Furthermore, this tendency was stronger among cats that had lived with their human
family for a longer time, although we could not rule out an effect of age. This study provides evidence
that cats link a companion’s name and corresponding face without explicit training.

Many human words have referential meanings: they evoke a visual mental image when heard or r­ ead1. For
example, the word “apple” causes us to imagine a red or green fruit even if no such fruit is present. This language
property, which expands the plasticity of communication, is also seen to some extent in non-human animals,
mainly in the context of intraspecific vocal communication. Seyfarth, Cheney and Marler reported that vervet
monkeys (now called Chlorocebus pygerythrus) responded differently to different types of alarm c­ alls2 (although
some of the calls overlap ­acoustically3 and this view is currently ­debated4). More recently, west African green
monkeys (Chlorocebus sabaeus) rapidly learned the novel referent of an alarm call that was given in response to a
­drone5. Referential signaling is not limited to primates. Suzuki showed that tits (Parus minor) detected snake-like
motion more rapidly when a snake-specific alarm call rather than a general alarm call was played back, suggesting
that tits recall things to which at least one specific call r­ efers6. Such studies show that animals have specific calls
with a referential meaning, increasing the likelihood of responses appropriate for survival.
In contrast to studies dealing with life-or-death-related issues and ecology, some studies have reported that
companion animals understand human utterances in more neutral situations and use them in communication
with us [e.g., dogs (Canis lupus familiaris)7–12]. Dogs in particular have been studied in this context; for example,
a few “expert” dogs trained in object-name fetching over several months remembered hundreds of object names
and fetched the correct object upon verbal c­ ommand7,8,12. According to a recent report, “gifted” dogs learned
object names after few exposures during social interactions, whereas the majority of dogs did not show such
object-name association learning despite intensive t­ raining12.
Similar to dogs, cats (Felis catus) are one of the most widespread companion animals in the ­world13 . Although
the ancestral Libyan wildcat (Felis lybica) is a solitary s­ pecies14, many domestic cats live with humans and show
evidence of social cognitive operations concerning humans. They can use human pointing ­cues15 and gaze ­cues16
to find food. They also discriminate between human facial ­expressions17–19 and attentional ­states20–22, and identify
their owner’s ­voice23. Furthermore, they cross-modally match their owner’s voice and ­face24 when tested with
their owner’s photo presented on a screen, and human emotional sounds and ­expressions19.

1
Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshida‑honmachi, Sakyo,
Kyoto 606‑8501, Japan. 2Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Azabu University, 1‑17‑71, Fuchinobe,
Chuo‑ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252‑5201, Japan. 3Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, 5‑3‑1,
Chiyoda‑ku, Tokyo 102‑0083, Japan. 4Department of Psychology, Faculty of Human Sciences, Sophia University,
7‑1, Kioicho, Chiyoda‑ku, Tokyo 102‑8554, Japan. 5Research and Development Section, Anicom Speciality
Medical Institute Inc., 2‑6‑3 Chojamachi 5F, Yokohamashi‑Nakaku, Kanagawaken 231‑0033, Japan. 6Wildlife
Research Center, Kyoto University, 2‑24 Tanaka‑Sekiden‑cho, Sakyo, Kyoto 606‑8203, Japan. *email: sa-takagi@
azabu-u.ac.jp

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 1

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Cats have been shown to distinguish their own from another familiar cat’s name in a habituation–dishabitu-
ation ­procedure25, and they also distinguished those names from general nouns. Interestingly, cats living in
multi-cat households habituated less to their companion cats’ names than to other nouns. Conceivably, therefore,
cats might also recognize the name of another cat living in the same household.
Here we examined whether cats linked a human utterance and the corresponding object, using a relatively
simple task that is applicable to many species: a visual-auditory expectancy violation task previously used to test
cats’ ability to predict an object when hearing that objects’ n­ ame24. As stimuli we used the names of other cats
(“models”) cohabiting with the subjects in Exp.1, and human family members’ names in Exp.2. Cats were pre-
sented with the face of the other cat (Exp.1) or human (Exp.2) following presentation of the model’s name, called
by the owner (Exp.1) or an experimenter (Exp.2). Half of the trials were “congruent,” i.e., the model’s face and
name matched, whereas the other half were “incongruent” (the stimuli mismatched). Previous research showed
that cats matched human photos and ­voices24, which established the validity of presenting photos as stimuli.
Our hypothesis was that cats learned face–name relationships by observing interactions involving their owner,
and that more such observations would lead to stronger learning. We tested two groups of cats, differing in the
number of other cats they lived with: cats belonging to cat cafés where many cats live together, and household
cats. The latter probably have more opportunities to observe interactions between the owner and each of the
other cohabitating cats, which might facilitate learning of the face–name relationship. Therefore, we analyzed data
from household cats and cat café cats separately in Exp.1. In Exp.2, analysis concerned the number of cohabiting
family members because more members would have more opportunities to hear other members’ names (e.g.,
people living as a couple probably say each other’s name less often than people living in a larger family). In Exp.2
we considered length of time living with the family as well as the number of family members.
We made two predictions. First, attention toward the stimulus face displayed on the monitor should be longer
in incongruent trials due to expectancy violation. Second, the amount of violation is related to the amount of
exposure to relevant interactions; specifically, household cats should show stronger violation effects than café
cats in Exp.1, and cats living in households with more people should show more evidence of expectancy viola-
tion in Exp.2.

Experiment 1
Materials and methods. Subjects. We tested 48 cats (28 males and 19 females). Twenty-nine (17 males
and 12 females, mean age 3.59 years, SD 2.71 years) lived in five “cat cafés” (mean number living together:
14.2, SD 10.01), where visitors can freely interact with the cats. The other 19 (11 males and 8 females, mean
age 8.16 years, SD 5.16 years) were household cats (mean number living together: 6.37, SD 4.27). We tested
household cats living with at least two other cats because the experiment required two cats as models. The model
cats were quasi-randomly chosen from the cats living with the subject, on condition of a minimum period of
6 months cohabiting, and having different coat colors so that their faces might be more easily identified. We did
not ask the owner to make any changes to water or feeding schedules.

Stimuli. For each subject, visual stimuli consisted of two photos of two cats other than the subject who lived
together, and auditory stimuli consisting of the voice of the owner calling the cats’ names. We asked the owner
to call each cat’s name as s/he would usually do, and recorded the call using a handheld digital audio recorder
(SONY ICD-UX560F, Japan) in WAV format. The sampling rate was 44,100 Hz and the sampling resolution
was 16-bit. The call lasted about 1 s, depending on the length of cat’s name (mean duration 1.04 s, SD 0.02). All
sound files were adjusted to the same volume with the help of version 2.3.0 of Audacity(R) recording and editing
­software26. We took a digital, frontal face, neutral expression, color photo of each cat against a plain background
(resolution range: x = 185 to 1039, y = 195 to 871) which was expanded or shrunk to fit the monitor size (12.3″
PixelSense™ built-in display).

Procedure. We tested cats individually in a familiar room. The cat was softly restrained by Experimenter 1,
30 cm in front of the laptop computer (SurfacePro6, Microsoft) which controlled the auditory and visual stimuli.
Each cat was tested in one session consisting of two phases. First, in the name phase the model cat’s name was
played back from the laptop’s built-in speaker four times, each separated by a 2.5-s inter-stimulus interval. Dur-
ing this phase, the monitor remained black. Immediately after the name phase, the face phase began, in which a
cat’s face appeared on the monitor for 7 s. The face photos were ca. 16.5 × 16 cm on the monitor. Experimenter 1
gently restrained the cat, looking down at its head; she never looked at the monitor, and so was unaware of the
test condition. When the cat was calm and oriented toward the monitor, Experimenter 1 started the name phase
by pressing a key on the computer. She restrained the cat until the end of the name phase, and then released it.
Some cats remained stationary, whereas others moved around and explored the photograph presented on the
monitor. The trial ended after the 7-s face phase.
We conducted two congruent and two incongruent trials for each subject (Fig. 1), in pseudo-random order,
with the restriction that the same vocalization was not repeated on consecutive trials. The inter-trial interval
was at least 3 min. The subject’s behaviors were recorded on three cameras (two Gopros (HERO black 7) and
SONY FDR-X3000): one beside the monitor for a lateral view, one in front of the cat to measure time looking at
the monitor, and one recording the entire trial from behind.

Analysis. One cat completed only the first trial before escaping from the room and climbing out of reach. For
the face phase we measured time attending to the monitor, defined as visual orientation toward or sniffing the
monitor. Trials in which the subject paid no attention to the monitor in the face phase were excluded from the
analyses. In total, 34 congruent trials and 33 incongruent trials for café cats, and 26 congruent trials and 27

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 2

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Cat A name Cat B name

Congruent condition
Incongruent condition

Cat A face Cat B face

Figure 1.  Diagram illustrating each condition in Exp.1. Two model cats were chosen from cats living with
subject. The model cat’s name called by owner was played through the speaker built into the laptop computer
(Name phase). Immediately after playback, a cat’s face appeared on the monitor (Face phase). On half of the
trials the name and face matched (congruent condition), on the other half they mismatched (incongruent
condition).

incongruent trials for house cats were analyzed (69 trials excluded overall). A coder who was blind to the condi-
tions counted the number of frames (30 frames/sec.) in which the cat attended to the monitor. To check inter-
observer reliability, an assistant who was blind to the conditions coded a randomly chosen 20% of the videos.
The correlation between the two coders was high and positive (Pearson’s r = 0.88, n = 24, p < 0.001).
We used R version 3.5.1 for all statistical a­ nalyses27. Time attending to the monitor was analyzed by a linear
mixed model (LMM) using a lmer function in a lme4 package version 1.1.1028. We log-transformed attention
time to get close to normal distribution. Congruency (congruent/ incongruent), environment (cat café/house),
and the interaction were entered as fixed factors, and subject identity was a random factor. We ran F tests using
an Anova function in a car p ­ ackage29 to test whether effects of each factor were significant. To test for differences
between conditions, an emmeans function in an emmeans ­package30 was used, testing differences of least squares
means. Degrees of freedom were adjusted by the Kenward–Roger procedure.
In addition to attention to the monitor, we calculated the Violation Index (VI), which indicates how much
longer cats attended in the incongruent condition than the congruent condition. VI was calculated by subtracting
the mean congruent value from the mean incongruent value for each subject. Greater VI values indicate longer
looking in incongruent conditions. Note that we used data only from subjects with at least one congruent—incon-
gruent pair. Thus, if a subject had one congruent/incongruent data point, we used that value for analysis instead
of calculating the mean. Data from 14 household cats and 16 café cats were analyzed. We ran a linear model
(LM) using a lmer function in a lme4 package version 1.1.1028. Living environment (café/house) was entered as
a fixed factor. To examine whether VI was greater than 0, we also conduct a one-sample t-test for each group.

Results and discussion. Figure 2 shows time attending to the monitor for each group. House cats attended
for longer in the incongruent than the congruent condition, as predicted; however, café cats did not show this
difference.
LMM revealed a significant main effect of living environment (X2 (1) = 16.544, p < 0.001), and a congruency x
living environment interaction ( X2 (1) = 6.743, p = 0.009). The differences of least squares means test confirmed
a significant difference between congruent and incongruent conditions in house cat (t (86) = 2.027, p = 0.045),
but not café cats (t (97.4) = 1.604, p = 0.110).
Figure 3 shows the difference in VI between groups. House cats had a significantly greater VI than café cats
(F (1,28) = 6.334, p = 0.017). A one-sample t-test revealed that house cats’ VI was greater than 0 (t(13) = 2.522,
p = 0.025) whereas that of café cats was not (t(15) = 1.309, p = 0.210).
These results indicate that only household cats anticipated a specific cat face upon hearing the cat’s name,
suggesting that they matched the stimulus cat’s name and the specific individual. Cats probably learn such name-
face relationships by observing third-party interactions; a role for direct receipt of rewards or punishments seems
highly unlikely. The ability to learn others’ names would involve a form of social learning. New behaviors or
other knowledge can also be acquired by observing other c­ ats31. Recent study has reported that cats learn new
behaviors from ­humans32. However, we could not identify the mechanism of learning. It is still an open question
how cats learn the other cats’ names and faces.
Environmental differences between house cats and café cats include how often they observe other cats being
called and reacting to calls. Contrary to human infants who are able to disambiguate the referent of a new
word among many potential ­ones33, cats might not do that at least in this study. Saito et al. showed that café
cats did not distinguish their own name from the name of cohabiting cats whereas household cats did so, in a

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 3

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 2.  Time attending to the monitor during the face phase for each group in Exp.1. Red bar represents
congruent condition; Blue bar represents incongruent condition. Left panel shows café cat data, right panel
shows house cat data. The y-axis is log-transformed.

Figure 3.  Violation Index for each group in Exp.1. Red boxplot (left) shows café cat data; blue boxplot (right)
shows house cat data.

habituation–dishabituation ­procedure25. We extend this finding by showing that café cats also do not appear to
learn the association between another cat’s name and its face.
We also asked whether the ability to recall another cat’s face upon hearing its name was limited to conspecifics.
How about human family members? In Exp.2 we used household cats and re-ran the same experiment using a
family member’s name and face.
A limitation of Exp.1 was that we could not analyze the effect of the duration of cohabiting with the model
cat because this differed across cats, and in some cases the information was lacking (i.e., it was hard to track the
exact length of time subject and model cats lived together, as the owner quarantined cats that didn’t get along
with others.). We predicted that the longer the cat and human had lived together, the stronger the association
between name and face would be, due to more opportunities to learn it.

Experiment 2
The procedure in Exp.2 was almost the same as in Exp.1, but we used human instead of cat stimuli. In view of
likely differential exposure to name–face relationships depending on the number of people living together (for
example, someone living with a single other person calls that person’s names less often than someone living
with multiple others), we took this factor, along with length of time living together, into account in the analysis.

Materials and methods. Subjects. We tested 26 household cats (15 males and 11 females, mean age
5.2 years, SD 3.27 years) living in houses with more than two people. Thirteen cats lived with two-person fami-
lies, seven with three-person families, four with four-person families, and two with five-person families. Dura-
tions of living together ranged between 6 and 180 months (mean 49.79 months, SD 41.50). We did not ask the
owner to change water or feeding schedules.

Stimuli. The experimental stimuli were the same as Exp.1 except that we used human names and faces instead
of cat names and faces, and unfamiliar voices instead of owners’ voices (mean duration 0.80 s, SD 0.30) (i.e., the

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 4

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

person calling the name was never the person whose face was presented). As in Exp. 1, we used habitually used
names instead of real names to ensure that the cats had the opportunity to learn on a daily basis (e.g., “mother”).
All sound files were adjusted to the same volume with Audacity(R). One experimenter took the photos, face-
forward and smiling, with a plain background (resolution range x = 304 to 4608, y = 340 to 3512) which were
adjusted to the monitor size. If the model could not be present on the day of the experiment the owner sent a
family photo by e-mail in advance. In households of more than two people, the models were decided randomly.

Procedure. The procedure was the same as in Exp.1.

Analysis. We conducted almost the same statistical analysis as in Exp. 1. One cat was tested only on the first
trial because she escaped from the room. In total, 32 congruent and 27 incongruent trials were analyzed, after
excluding 42 “no attention” trials. We measured duration of attending to the monitor as in Exp.1 and analyzed
the data by a linear mixed model (LMM) using a lmer function in a lme4 package version 1.1.1028. We log-
transformed the attention data to better approximate a normal distribution. We log-transformed the duration
of living together to reduce variance. Congruency (congruent/incongruent), number of family members (2–5),
duration of living together and interactions were entered as fixed factors, with subject identity as random factor.
To clarify the effect of duration of living together, we assigned cats to two groups: those living with their humans
for above-median durations were the “Long” group, and those with below-median durations were the “Short”
group.
In addition to attention, we analyzed VI. Because we used data from subjects with at least one congruent—
incongruent pair, this concerned 16 subjects. We ran a linear model (LM) using a lmer function in a lme4 package
version 1.1.1028 with the number of family members (2–5) and duration of living together entered as fixed factors.

Results and discussion. Figure 4 shows time spent attending to the monitor according to the number
of family members. The more the number of family members increased, the longer cats attended to the moni-
tor in the incongruent compared to the congruent condition. LMM revealed significant interactions of con-
gruency × number of family members ( X2(1) = 3.885, p = 0.048) and congruency × number of family mem-
ber × duration of living together ( X2 (1) = 3.920, p = 0.047). There was no significant main effect of congruency
( X2(1) = 0.066, p = 0.797). Figure 5 shows attention to the monitor for each group divided by length of time living
together, to illustrate the 3-way interaction. The Long group strengthened the tendency (the more family mem-
bers, the greater attention in the incongruent condition), whereas the short group weakened the tendency, with
fewer differences between congruent and incongruent conditions.
Figure 6 shows the relation between VI and the number of family members. With increasing family size, the
VI scores were higher. LM revealed a significant main effect of number of family members (F (1,12) = 6.522,
p = 0.025). However, there was no significant interaction between number of family members and duration of
living together.
These results suggested that not all cats predict a familiar human’s face upon hearing that name; we found no
main effect of congruency. However, the interaction among congruency, number of family members and time
living together indicated that attending to the monitor was affected by time spent together and family environ-
ment: the bigger the family, the more cats attended in the incongruent condition and the less they attended in
the congruent condition; this was especially so for the cats that had lived longest with their human family. Our
interpretation is that cats living with more people have more opportunities to hear names being used than cats

Figure 4.  Time attending to the monitor during the face phase in Exp.2. Red points represent congruent
condition; blue points represents incongruent condition. Each line represents a regression line predicted by the
LMM. Each ribbon represents the 95% confidence interval. The y-axis is log-transformed.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 5

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 5.  Time attending to the monitor during the face phase grouped by time living together in Exp.2.
We separated time living together into short and long groups by median for convenience because we found
a significant interaction of time together, number of family members and congruency. Left panel represents
short group; right panel represents long group. Red points represent congruent condition; blue points represent
incongruent condition. Each line represents a regression line predicted by the LMM. Each ribbon represents the
95% confidence interval. The y-axis is log-transformed.

Figure 6.  The relationship between Violation Index and number of family members. Grey area indicates the
95% confidence interval predicted by the LM.

living with fewer people, and that living with a family for a longer time increases this experience. In other words,
the frequency and number of exposure to the stimuli may make the name–face association more likely.

Ethical statement. This study adhered to the ethical guidelines of Kyoto University and Azabu University,
and was approved by the Animal Experiments Committee of the Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University
and the Ethics Committee of Azabu University, which follows “Guidelines for Proper Conduct of Animal Exper-
iments” by the Science Council of Japan (2006). Informed consent was obtained from all owners.

General discussion
This study examined whether domestic cats learn that human utterances indicate specific objects in their daily
life. In Exp.1, cats were presented with the face of another cat from the same household after hearing playback
of either a matching or a mismatching name. Results revealed that house cats, but not café cats, attended to the
monitor for longer in a name-face incongruent condition than the congruent condition. Upon hearing a cats’
name, the subjects expected the corresponding face. In Exp.2, we used human stimuli to examine whether cats
also expect the face of human family members upon hearing their names. Results showed that, although not all
cats attended for longer duration in the incongruent condition, the number of household members affected their
responses: with more family members, cats attended for longer to the monitor in the incongruent condition.
Furthermore, cats that had lived with their family for longer showed the longest durations of attention when
the name–face relationship was incongruent. These results might suggest that cats might learn names from

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 6

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

observing interactions between humans: a third-party perspective. However, it was not procedurally possible to
identify the mechanism of learning in this study. Further study should clarify how cats learned the association.
In summary, house cats matched at least their companion cats’ names and faces, and possibly their human family
members’ names. This is the first evidence that domestic cats link human utterances and their social referents
through every day experiences.
Acquisition of new signal-meaning pairs requires a high level of social cognition, such as knowing to whom
others are talking and paying a­ ttention34. Many recent reports on social cognition in cats (see r­ eview35), have
shown their high sensitivity to human attentional s­ tates20–22. These results of the present study suggest that cats
might understand who is talking to whom in everyday situations, which is consistent with those studies. However,
it is still unclear how cats learned the name-face association. Further study should address this point.
In Exp.1, we found a difference between household cats and café cats. Previous studies have reported several
behavioral differences between these two g­ roups24,25,36. In Saito et al. house cats but not café cats were shown to
recognize their own name; café cats did not discriminate their own name from names of other cats living in the
same environment. Whereas house cats probably learn by observing the reaction of the specific cat whose name
was called, café cats are more likely to hear different names called by different guests, making such learning more
difficult. Additionally, the number of cats living together might have an influence, as more cats probably means
fewer opportunities to learn specific cat name-identity relationships. In our experiment, 75% of café cats tested
lived in cafés holding over 30 cats (Supplementary Table S1). In fact, recent research has shown that people with
larger social networks show poorer voice r­ ecognition37. To untangle any effects of number of cats living together
and fewer opportunities to observe interactions of each cat, cats from cafés of different sizes could be tested.
In this study we did not take into account the nature of the social relationships between cats. Model cats were
randomly chosen among subjects’ cohabitants, without regard to the quality or their relationship with the subject.
It could be useful for further studies to examine this factor as well as the influences of experience, environment,
and familiarity of model cats on cats’ learning of human utterances.
We used familiar voices as auditory stimuli in Exp.1 and unfamiliar voices in Exp.2. Cats responded more in
incongruent condition in Exp.1 but less clearly so in Exp.2. Perhaps cats will generally show clearer expectancy
violation effects when names are called by familiar voices. Some previous studies have shown cat-human com-
munication effects specific to the owner, with little generalization of social cognitive abilities to a ­stranger18,38.
Galvan and Vonk reported that cats differentiate between happy and aggressive expressions of their owner but not
a ­stranger18. Although Saito et al. reported that cats recognized their own name even when called by a ­stranger25,
this was not the case for a family member’s name, possibly due to weaker association in the latter situation. To
more closely examine whether cats understand common phonetic characteristics in human utterances beyond
the owner’s voice, future studies should use strangers’ voices as stimuli.
We found that cats recognize at least one companion cat’s name and possibly a human family member’s
name. It might be asked what motive cats have for remembering names. One possible explanation has to do
with competition. For example, a cat might receive food when the owner calls her name but not when she calls
another cat’s name. The fact that humans are probably not in competition with cats might explain the weaker
association between human names and faces.
In Experiment 2 we found that cats’ looking behavior changed with the length of time living with a human
family. However, this length was highly correlated with cat age (Pearson’s r = 0.89). Because cognitive abilities
develop with age, the relationship we observed may reflect an age effect. We were unable to isolate these factors
in this study; this should be done in future research.
Previous studies of companion animals’ understanding of human speech have focused on “exceptional” sub-
jects with intensive training and subsequent excellent performance in remembering names of many objects (in
­dogs7,8). By contrast, recent work revealed that “normal” dogs did not perform as impressively as “exceptional”
­dogs39. However, those studies did not clarify whether subjects had a visual image of the referent after hearing a
name. Our study demonstrated that cats expect a specific face upon hearing the specific name of a companion.
We conducted no training, but exploited cats’ spontaneous learning of relationships between names and faces
in their everyday experiences, similar to what human children do. Further study should test whether cats are
sensitive to the symbolic nature of some human utterances.
We did not control or measure affective aspects of hearing the other cat’s or human’s name. Further studies
along these lines should consider using emotionally neutral items and their names, removing possible affect-
related influences, to shed further light on cats’ ability to link names and objects of more neutral valence.
In conclusion, house cats linked at least two conspecific housemates’ human-given “names”. They might have
a cross-modally integrated concept of another cat’s name and face, similar to humans. This study differs from
well-known field s­ tudies2 in that the stimulus utterance was not related to any urgent, potential life or death
situation. A remaining question is how cats learn names. Language learning is known to be affected by prosodic
aspects. Infant-directed speech characterized by prosodic exaggeration and lexical and syntactic simplification
facilitates word learning in i­ nfants40. An fMRI study revealed that dog brains dissociated lexical and emotional
prosodic information in human spoken words, similar to ­humans9, which might facilitate language learning.
Prosodic factors might affect cats in the same way, which would be interesting for how they learn about the ref-
erential nature of human utterances. Another question concerns the evolution of this ability. Some researchers
have proposed that (self-) domestication was important in human language ­evolution34,41. Future research could
address this issue by working with African wildcats, or other domesticated animals such as dogs and horses.

Data availability
We attached data on e-letter which contains all data we used this study.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 7

Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Received: 1 October 2021; Accepted: 4 March 2022

References
1. Hurford, J. R. & Hurford, J. R. In The Origins of Grammar: Language in the Light of Evolution II (Oxford University Press, 2012).
2. Seyfarth, R. M., Cheney, D. L. & Marler, P. Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and
semantic communication. Science 210, 801–803 (1980).
3. Price, T. et al. Vervets revisited: A quantitative analysis of alarm call structure and context specificity. Sci. Rep. 5, 1–11 (2015).
4. Wheeler, B. C. & Fischer, J. Functionally referential signals: A promising paradigm whose time has passed. Evol. Anthropol. 21,
195–205 (2012).
5. Wegdell, F., Hammerschmidt, K. & Fischer, J. Conserved alarm calls but rapid auditory learning in monkey responses to novel
flying objects. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1039–1042 (2019).
6. Suzuki, T. N. Alarm calls evoke a visual search image of a predator in birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 115, 1541–1545 (2018).
7. Kaminski, J., Call, J. & Fischer, J. Word learning in a domestic dog: Evidence for" fast mapping". Science 304, 1682–1683 (2004).
8. Pilley, J. W. & Reid, A. K. Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents. Behav. Processes 86, 184 (2011).
9. Andics, A. et al. Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs. Science (New York, NY) 353, 1030 (2016).
10. Griebel, U. & Oller, D. K. Vocabulary learning in a Yorkshire terrier: Slow mapping of spoken words. PLoS One 7, e30182 (2012).
11. Dror, S., Miklósi, Á., Sommese, A., Temesi, A. & Fugazza, C. Acquisition and long-term memory of object names in a sample of
Gifted Word Learner dogs. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 210976 (2021).
12. Fugazza, C. et al. Rapid learning of object names in dogs. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–11 (2021).
13. Driscoll, C. A., Macdonald, D. W. & O’Brien, S. J. From wild animals to domestic pets, an evolutionary view of domestication.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106(Suppl 1), 9971–9978 (2009).
14. Driscoll, C. A. et al. The Near Eastern origin of cat domestication. Science 317, 519–523 (2007).
15. Miklósi, Á., Pongrácz, P., Lakatos, G., Topál, J. & Csányi, V. A comparative study of the use of visual communicative signals in
interactions between dogs (Canis familiaris) and humans and cats (Felis catus) and humans. J. Comp. Psychol. 119, 179 (2005).
16. Pongrácz, P., Szapu, J. S. & Faragó, T. Cats (Felis silvestris catus) read human gaze for referential information. Intelligence 74, 43–52
(2019).
17. Merola, I., Lazzaroni, M., Marshall-Pescini, S. & Prato-Previde, E. Social referencing and cat-human communication. Anim. Cogn.
18, 639–648 (2015).
18. Galvan, M. & Vonk, J. Man’s other best friend: domestic cats (F. silvestris catus) and their discrimination of human emotion cues.
Anim. Cogn. 19, 193–205 (2016).
19. Quaranta, A., d’Ingeo, S., Amoruso, R. & Siniscalchi, M. Emotion recognition in cats. Animals 10, E1107 (2020).
20. Ito, Y., Watanave, A., Tagagi, S., Arahori, M. & Saito, A. Cats beg for food from the human who looks at and calls to them: Ability
to understand humans’ attentional states. Psychologia 59, 112–120 (2016).
21. Vitale, K. R. & Udell, M. A. The quality of being sociable: The influence of human attentional state, population, and human famili-
arity on domestic cat sociability. Behav. Processes 158, 11–17 (2019).
22. Koyasu, H. & Nagasawa, M. Recognition of directed-gaze from humans in cats. Jpn. J. Anim. Psychol. 69(2), 3 (2019).
23. Saito, A. & Shinozuka, K. Vocal recognition of owners by domestic cats (Felis catus). Anim. Cogn. 16, 685–690 (2013).
24. Takagi, S. et al. Cats match voice and face: Cross-modal representation of humans in cats (Felis catus). Anim. Cogn. 22, 901–906
(2019).
25. Saito, A., Shinozuka, K., Ito, Y. & Hasegawa, T. Domestic cats (Felis catus) discriminate their names from other words. Sci. Rep. 9,
1–8 (2019).
26. Audacity team. Audacity® software is copyright © 1999–2021 Audacity Team. The name Audacity® is a registered trademark. (2019).
27. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018). https://​
www.R-​proje​ct.​org/.
28. Bates, D. et al. Package ‘lme4’. CRAN.R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2012).
29. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. In An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage Publications, 2018).
30. Lenth, R. V. Lenth emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means.R package version 1.5.3. (2020).
31. John, E. R., Chesler, P., Bartlett, F. & Victor, I. Observation learning in cats. Science 159, 1489–1491 (1968).
32. Fugazza, C., Sommese, A., Pogány, Á. & Miklósi, Á. Did we find a copycat? Do as I Do in a domestic cat (Felis catus). Anim. Cogn.
24, 121–131 (2021).
33. Bion, R. A., Borovsky, A. & Fernald, A. Fast mapping, slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word–object mappings in relation
to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30 months. Cognition 126, 39–53 (2013).
34. Thomas, J. & Kirby, S. Self domestication and the evolution of language. Biol. Philos. 33, 1–30 (2018).
35. Shreve, K. R. V. & Udell, M. A. What’s inside your cat’s head? A review of cat (Felis silvestris catus) cognition research past, present
and future. Anim. Cogn. 18, 1195–1206 (2015).
36. Bucher, B., Arahori, M., Chijiwa, H., Takagi, S. & Fujita, K. Domestic cats’ reactions to their owner and an unknown individual
petting a potential rival. Pet. Behav. Sci. 9, 16–33 (2020).
37. Lev-Ari, S. People with larger social networks show poorer voice recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 75, 17470218211030798 (2021).
38. Pongrácz, P. & Onofer, D. L. Cats show an unexpected pattern of response to human ostensive cues in a series of A-not-B error
tests. Anim. Cogn. 23, 681–689 (2020).
39. Fugazza, C., Dror, S., Sommese, A., Temesi, A. & Miklósi, Á. Word learning dogs (Canis familiaris) provide an animal model for
studying exceptional performance. Sci. Rep. 11, 1–9 (2021).
40. Thiessen, E. D., Hill, E. A. & Saffran, J. R. Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy 7, 53–71 (2005).
41. Progovac, L. & Benítez-Burraco, A. From physical aggression to verbal behavior: Language evolution and self-domestication
feedback loop. Front. Psychol. 10, 2807 (2019).

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge with thanks all owners and cats who volunteered in this study. The authors also wish
to thank James R. Anderson for editing the article.

Author contributions
S.T. participated in the design of the study, collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript as cor-
responding author. M.A, H.C. and A.S. collected data. A.S., K.F., M.N. T.K., and H.K. gave S.T. suggestions about
experiment design, data analysis, discussions and helped draft the manuscript. All authors critically revised the
report, commented on drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final report.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 8

Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Funding
This study was financially supported by Grants-in-aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) No. 17J08974, No.
19J01485 to S. Takagi, No. JP16J1034 to M. Arahori, No. JP16J08691 to H. Chijiiwa, No. 25118003 to A. Saito and
Nos. 25240020, 26119514, 16H01505, 15K12047, 25118002, and 16H06301 to K. Fujita from the Japan Society
for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1038/​s41598-​022-​10261-5.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to S.T.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2022, corrected publication 2023

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:6155 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10261-5 9

Vol.:(0123456789)