Do characteristics of object referent (topicality, animacy, definiteness) influence object marking?

The usage of case-marking for some objects and not for other objects is known as differential object marking (DOM). The aim of this question is to find out whether a language reveals differences in object marking conditioned by some characteristics (such as topicality, animacy, or definiteness) of an object. In Komi, definite inanimate objects may be unmarked (1a), whereas animate objects obligatorily take the accusative case (1b).

(1) Komi Zyrian (Klumpp 2012:345)
a. Ме любита Сыктывкарöс ~ Сыктывкар
[me ʎubit-ɑ Sɨktɨvkɑr-ɘs ~ Sɨktɨvkɑr]
1SG love-PRS.1SG Syktyvkar-ACC ~ Syktyvkar[ACC]
‘I like Syktyvkar’

b. Ме любита Бобикöс
[me ʎubit-ɑ Bobik-ɘs]
1SG love-PRS.1SG Bobik-ACC
‘I like Bobik'

Cf. the prominecy scale (Aissen 2003): - Animacy scale: HUMAN > ANIMATE > INANIMATE - Definiteness scale: PERSONAL PRONOUN > PROPER NAME > DEFINITE NP > INDEFINITE SPECIFIC NP > NON-SPECIFIC NP

Coding. The value is '1' if at least one of the characteristics of object referent causes differences in direct object marking. The value is '0' if case-marking depends entirely on the type of a noun (e.g. in Khanty, only pronouns get accusative marking). When answering the question, only finite clauses were considered.

References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21(3). 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573.
Klumpp, Gerson. 2012. Differential object marking and information structure: on the function of two differet pronominal accusatives in Komi and Khanty dialects. ESUKA - JEFUL 3. 343–372.