The obvious irony of such formal studies and their confident reveal is that, as people who've had animals (particularly mammals) as part of their close 'family' long term, we know all that. In so much greater detail (10-20 full years of 365 full days worth) than they'll ever be able to perceive from a quick data sweep/inspect.

We develop bespoke languages to 'speak' with our long term animals, comprised of nuance between vocalisation type, and tone, body posture and bearing, type of approach, gestures, eye contact, actions.

Really live with another mammal for 5+ years (or full lifespan, for those animals with less) - e.g. as somebody who doesn't leave home much - and by the end of those years you will be living in a complex symphony with them, full of nuanced communication and understandings and mutual routines. Their moods and feelings and facial expressions will be almost as obvious to you as your own child's.

So when we-who-know-this from living it see these formal studies where a team of young scholars are essentially collating the outline of that reality and present it as a found conclusion - "the nature of the interactions between owner-and-horse actually defines part of the horse!" - we cannot help but feel a little as though we were just told that (e.g.) Food is Nutritious!

And conversely, there exists that cadre of formal animal studies which release findings which lean broadly-opposite to the above, such as "Actually, dog owners who think they can read their animal's facial expression, cannot". Quite funny when you think about it.

Hey, I'm not complaining about the existence of studies like the title. There are probably a great many people whose ways of thinking would be greatly changed - for the better - if they understood how similar many animals (especially mammals, but others too) really are to us, beyond the fantasies of great separation and uniqueness that we build around our own species with complex stories.

And formal releases like this are one positive part of that improvement.