Yes, research shows that cats can learn specific behaviors and distinguish meaningful sounds. The evidence does not establish that every cat will learn on the same schedule or that one app is more effective than another. Read a study’s population, task, comparison, and outcome before applying its result to your own cat.
A reference for readers and writers
This is a selected reading list, not our own systematic review of every feline-learning study. The original studies below address trained actions, name discrimination and kitten classes. A separate published review helps explain a fourth question: what evidence would show that adding a marker improves training?
The original three study summaries were checked on September 12, 2026, and their source pages were rechecked on September 17. This September 18 update adds the 2020 conditioned-reinforcement review and the comparison guide below. Publication dates stay visible: these are older findings considered together, not new discoveries or trials of Pounce.
2017: learning four cued behaviors
Kogan, Kolus, and Schoenfeld-Tacher assessed 100 shelter cats completing 15 five-minute clicker sessions over two weeks. Performance scores improved for target touch, sit, spin, and high five. For nose targeting, 79 of 100 cats met the study’s full-performance criterion after training; 48 already met it at baseline.
That 79% is a post-training observation in this sample, not a 79% improvement or a promise for pet cats. This before-and-after study did not include a separate untrained control group, and reviewers knew which recordings were before or after training. It does not isolate the clicker from every other part of the training experience or establish a Pounce success rate.
Published September 22, 2017. Original paper: Assessment of Clicker Training for Shelter Cats. DOI: 10.3390/ani7100073.
Source: Kogan et al. (2017): Assessment of Clicker Training for Shelter Cats
2019: distinguishing a name from other words
Saito and colleagues used habituation and dishabituation experiments to test responses to spoken words. Household cats that habituated to comparison words showed renewed responses to their own names. The paper also reported a difference between household and cat-café cats when distinguishing their names from the names of cohabiting cats.
The experiment tested discrimination of sounds. It did not test reliable recall across a home, willingness to obey, or whether a cat understands a name as a human does. Recognizing a sound and walking toward a person after that sound remain different questions.
Published April 4, 2019. Original paper: Domestic cats (Felis catus) discriminate their names from other words. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-40616-4.
An author correction published September 10, 2019 fixes subject descriptions in the methods and supplementary material. Read it alongside the original paper.
Source: Saito et al. (2019): Domestic cats discriminate their names from other words
2025: training classes and learning over time
Vitale, Master, and Udell studied a six-week training and socialization class for kittens aged three to eight months. The task-discrimination analysis included 63 kittens: 31 in the class group and 32 controls. The class group maintained task-discrimination ability over time while the control group declined.
For the cognitive-bias latency analysis, the sample was 36 kittens: 17 class and 19 controls. The researchers found no significant between-group difference in these latencies. The result should not be retold as proof that classes made kittens more optimistic. The intervention also combined training and socialization; it does not isolate an app or a clicker.
Published December 16, 2025. Original paper: The impact of kitten training and socialization classes on cat cognitive bias and discrimination learning. DOI: 10.3389/fetho.2025.1681085.
2020: a review of conditioned reinforcement
Pfaller-Sadovsky and colleagues reviewed 34 applied animal-training studies; six were eligible for their meta-analysis. Dogs and horses made up most of the reviewed research. The pooled intervention analysis compared training with a baseline in which no training occurred.
That comparison matters. A change from no training to a package containing a click and food does not isolate what the click added. The review’s headline effect is not a cat-only estimate, a clicker-versus-food advantage, or a percentage of cats that will learn a trick.
To evaluate an added marker benefit, look for a comparison in which the task, reward and other training conditions are sufficiently similar and marker use differs. The authors identify limited intervention evidence and incomplete reporting as reasons for further research. This review cannot establish that a particular phone app is better than another teaching format.
Published September 28, 2020. Original review: What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101757.
Four questions to ask before repeating a claim
- Who was studied? Note the population and the number actually included in the relevant analysis.
- What changed? Separate the whole intervention from one component, such as a marker sound or an app.
- What was measured? A task score, an approach time, and a veterinary health outcome are not interchangeable.
- What comparison supports the conclusion? Look for baseline differences, a control group, and limitations reported by the authors.
For your own reading notes, separate the observation from the claim you want to make. “Cats performed a defined task in this setting” is a different statement from “this training will fix my household problem.” You may need different evidence for the second statement.
| Claim to evaluate | Comparison to look for |
|---|---|
| A training package changes performance | The defined task before and after training, with an appropriate comparison and limitations. |
| A marker adds a benefit | Comparable training with and without that marker. |
| One app teaches more effectively | A study comparing the actual apps or teaching formats, with defined outcomes. |
What this means for a small session at home
Our editorial takeaway is modest: there is good reason to offer a cat an opportunity to learn, and good reason to adapt the activity to the individual in front of you. These studies are not trials of Pounce. We use them as context for education, not as an endorsement of our product.
Pounce’s foundation path begins with a familiar marker and a small voluntary action. If you want to try that approach, start with one comfortable session and record what your cat actually did. A head turn, an easy touch, or choosing to leave tells you where to start next time. None needs to be forced into a promised timetable.
A little guidance goes a long way.
Follow illustrated lessons, take the next small step, and keep track of your cat’s little wins in Pounce.
Explore Pounce for iOSSources & how this guide was written
Original editorial synthesis of three primary studies and a separately identified published systematic review, with practical context from Pounce’s Meet the Clicker and Target Touch curriculum. Added September 18, 2026: marker-evidence limitations and an original claim-to-comparison table. This selected reference is not original Pounce research, our own systematic review, or evidence of the app’s effectiveness.
- Kogan et al. (2017): Assessment of Clicker Training for Shelter Cats
- Saito et al. (2019): Domestic cats discriminate their names from other words
- Vitale et al. (2025): Kitten training, socialization, cognitive bias and discrimination learning
- Saito et al. (2019): Author correction
- Pfaller-Sadovsky et al. (2020): Conditioned reinforcement systematic review and meta-analysis
Sources checked September 18, 2026. This article is educational and has not been individually reviewed by a veterinarian. Our editorial policy explains our approach.