Explore the vast range of titles available.

Detection dogs are required to search for and alert to specific odours of interest, such as drugs, cadavers, disease markers and explosives. However, the odour released from different samples of the same target substance will vary for a number of reasons, including the production method, evaporation, degradation, or by being mixed with extraneous odours. Generalisation, the tendency to respond in the same manner to stimuli which are different – but similar to – a conditioned stimulus, is therefore a crucial requirement for working detection dogs. Odour is a complex modality which poses unique challenges in terms of reliably predicting generalisation, when compared with auditory or visual stimuli. The primary aim of this review is to explore recent advances in our understanding of generalisation and the factors that influence it, and to consider these in light of detection dog training methods currently used in the field. We identify potential risks associated with certain training practices, and highlight areas where research is lacking and which warrant further investigation.

Background Cancer detection using sniffer dogs is a potential technology for clinical use and research. Our study sought to determine whether dogs could be trained to discriminate the odour of urine from men with prostate cancer from controls, using rigorous testing procedures and well-defined samples from a major research hospital. Methods We attempted to train ten dogs by initially rewarding them for finding and indicating individual prostate cancer urine samples (Stage 1). If dogs were successful in Stage 1, we then attempted to train them to discriminate prostate cancer samples from controls (Stage 2). The number of samples used to train each dog varied depending on their individual progress. Overall, 50 unique prostate cancer and 67 controls were collected and used during training. Dogs that passed Stage 2 were tested for their ability to discriminate 15 (Test 1) or 16 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar prostate cancer samples from 45 (Test 1) or 48 (Tests 2 and 3) unfamiliar controls under double-blind conditions. Results Three dogs reached training Stage 2 and two of these learnt to discriminate potentially familiar prostate cancer samples from controls. However, during double-blind tests using new samples the two dogs did not indicate prostate cancer samples more frequently than expected by chance (Dog A sensitivity 0.13, specificity 0.71, Dog B sensitivity 0.25, specificity 0.75). The other dogs did not progress past Stage 1 as they did not have optimal temperaments for the sensitive odour discrimination training. Conclusions Although two dogs appeared to have learnt to select prostate cancer samples during training, they did not generalise on a prostate cancer odour during robust double-blind tests involving new samples. Our study illustrates that these rigorous tests are vital to avoid drawing misleading conclusions about the abilities of dogs to indicate certain odours. Dogs may memorise the individual odours of large numbers of training samples rather than generalise on a common odour. The results do not exclude the possibility that dogs could be trained to detect prostate cancer. We recommend that canine olfactory memory is carefully considered in all future studies and rigorous double-blind methods used to avoid confounding effects.