When I talk to other trainers I tend to get specific and speak in scientific terms. Things like Differential Reinforcement, Discriminative Stimulus, the Four Quadrants, etc. When I speak to customers, students, or the public at large, I tend to speak in much broader, general terms. It's kind of like me not needing to know about programming when I get my computer worked on. I did want to get a little more specific though about something I mentioned in my last blog: clicker or marker training.
In my last blog, I grossly generalized clicker training. Now that we have the basics, I wanted to get a little more specific. Basically how it works is you use a unique stimulus to mark a behavior. This is a way to tell the dog he has done something correctly at the moment it occurs. Because the marker (click or a specific word) has been paired with a reinforcer (food, praise, etc.), it tells the dog that when he hears the marker a reinforcer is coming. It really isn't so much a training technique as it is a system of reinforcement.
I like to use a clicker because it is a unique sound that carries very well over most noise. In class we tend to use the word "yesssss," drawing out the "s" to make the sound unique so as not to be confused with just saying "yes" in regular conversation. This saves you from having to carry around something extra in your pocket. For the purposes of the rest of the blog I'll refer to "click" as whatever marker you like to use. I will also refer to any reinforcer you care to use as "treat" even though it can be praise, a favorite toy, or anything the dog enjoys.
First you have to start by "charging" the clicker. You simply have the dog close to you, click and treat. The treat should follow the click within about a second to be the most effective. The more the dog wants the treat, the faster this will work. It should only take very few repetitions before he starts to associate the sound with the reinforcer. Once this pairing has taken place you will be able to delay the delivery of the treat because the click will elicit the same emotional response as the treat. I was able to charge the clicker with my dogs in about 2 minutes, but would start any training for about 2 more weeks by charging, just to make sure it was stable.
Now, if I am working on a sit, I can ask Duncan to sit, and as soon as his bottom hits the floor, click and treat. If I'm working on target training, as soon as his nose hits the target, click and treat. Whatever the training, as soon as it happens, I can mark it and he knows a treat is coming.
The two most common questions I hear at this point are "How do you get the behavior for a longer period of time?" and "What if you don't have a clicker or treat handy?"
To get the behavior to last longer, we'll take the sit for an example. Have the dog sit, and as soon as he's sitting, click and treat. Once he's sitting without any prompting five to ten times in a row, you can delay the click and treat for about a second. Once he's doing that amount of time consistently, you can delay the click and treat for two seconds, then three, and so on.
Something to remember at this point is to keep the training sessions short at first. You may only want to do about five minutes at first, and in that time you may only get a three second sit inconsistently. In the next training session you'll want to back up one or two steps before you move forward. Once he gets used to the training routine you can go for about 15 minutes, but usually it's not recommended to go longer than that. You can do two or three training sessions a day, but be aware of your dog's boredom and/or stress levels.
The point of training a behavior is so the dog will respond in real-life situations. In real-life, you won't always have a clicker or treats on hand. If you don't have a treat, don't click. The click means a treat is coming and if you that pairing doesn't happen, it will begin to lose its affect.
When you ask for a behavior - we'll use the sit again - if the behavior has a history of being reinforced, he is more likely to offer the behavior even if it does not get the click and treat. You don't want to do this too often, but enough that you will get a response in those real-life instances. Think of a slot machine. A person may not be reinforced - hit a jackpot - every time they put a quarter in, but it happens often enough that some people will still offer the behavior - keep playing - for hours on end. As long as the behavior has a history of reinforcement, there's no reason you can't get the behavior at any time.
Something to keep in mind with clicker training: it was popularized with training sea mammals. This is how killer whales and dolphins are trainer. It has also been shown to work by coaches training athletes such as swimmers and gymnasts. It can work on any vertebrate from fish to lizards to dogs.
Maybe later I'll do an entry about why clicker training works so well, but this is more about method, so I'll stop there for now.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Choosing a Trainer and Method
Many of you know I've been sick for a while. Unfortunately, the medicine I was on was an antidepressant that had the side effect of helping my ailment. Good for my headaches, but it made me very unmotivated. So one of the things to suffer was the Mudd Puppies Blog. I'm off the meds and trying to play catch up now. Hopefully I can get back to my schedule of every two weeks to a month. But, enough about that.
Well, a couple of things have gotten me thinking. If you read this blog regularly, you know last October I received my Dog Training Certificate from Companion Animals Sciences Institute (CASI). Since then I have been assisting at the Columbia Canine Sports Center (CCSC). I have the book learnin', now it's time to get the hands on experience.
Last week I sat through the orientation for students as a refresher and to get my next "assignment" for the next session with CCSC. I spoke with Kathy and Ginger after orientation and was surprised when they asked if I wanted to teach a class. After I was able to collect myself I told them I just needed a little time to get a lesson plan together but I'd be willing to give it a try. Truth be told, I'm very excited and very nervous about this, but I've started working on a lesson plan for a puppy class and basic obedience class and believe I'll be teaching next session.
What will be taught is the easy part. What I'm struggling with is the class discussions. I have so much information running around in my head from what I learned with CASI, blogs I read, videos I watch, journals I read, and other trainers I talk to. Not only am I trying to decide what to include, but how to keep it short, concise, and in a way that the students will retain the information.
The thing I've been thinking about the most is training methods. Not what method/s I intend to teach, but how I'll answer if someone asks when they should alpha roll their dog or what to do when their dog tries to dominate them. I saw a video the other day of a trainer touting the virtues of shock collars. These have many different names, but let's call them what they are. I was appalled that this trainer's (I wish I could remember his name, but I tried to erase it from my memory) technique was to slap a shock collar on a dog and call it training. The dogs are trained. A behavior is evoked in the presence of a stimuli, but where's the fun in that for anyone?
I have to wonder why some people get dogs. What's the point if the relationship is a constant struggle. I don't want to spend my time disciplining my dogs. I'd rather have a relationship with a dog who can think for himself and has learned how to make the right decision. I'd rather have a dog that looks to me for the right thing to do, not a dog that cowers because they aren't sure what to do.
I read and hear a lot of people say that dominance is the only thing that works on "red zone cases," but this is absolutely not the case. Most of the cases behaviorists see are aggression cases. The behaviorists I follow have been dealing with "red zone" cases longer than some tv personalities have been alive with as good or better rate of success. Most aggression in dogs stems from fear or insecurity. So first of all, what good is going to come from making a fear aggressive dog fear you? Second, if a fear aggressive dog is fearful, what is the natural response going to be except to protect himself. And third, if you use aversives to train a dog, if he doesn't totally shut down, or even if he does, there is the risk that eventually he will try to protect himself by aggressing. Why risk it when other, less aversive techniques are proven to work?
I personally don't believe you can be an all positive reinforcement trainer. It says to me that a dog can do no wrong or you totally ignore any inappropriate behavior. I would certainly not just sit and watch if one of my dogs raised his leg on the coffee table, for example. I also accept the fact that I use positive punishment - introducing a stimuli to lessen the frequency of a behavior. When I say "no" I've added a stimuli - the word - to lessen the frequency of a behavior - peeing on the coffee table. The most important thing is to use the "least intrusive effective behavior intervention" as James O'Heare calls it.
Why alpha roll your dog if he nips you when a sharp, quick cry of mock pain can teach him bite inhibition? Why use a shock collar to train your dog to sit when using a treat that can be faded can be used to lure him into position and he will learn to enjoy it? Why use aversives to teach an aggressive dog not to be aggressive when you can change the behavior instead of suppressing it by desensitizing him?
One of the things to look for in a trainer is their technique. I see a lot of trainers say positive reinforcement doesn't work, but shock collars do, choke chains do, or whatever method. Any training technique can work as defined above. The thing to remember is it's not an either/or decision.
Positive reinforcement can be clicker training, or target training for example. But you may also incorporate negative punishment - removing a stimuli to decrease the frequency of a behavior. An example of this might be turning your back to a dog - removing your attention - and crossing your arms when a dog jumps up on you. When searching for a trainer, remember that positive reinforcement is not a training method, it defines the method. Likewise, a clicker trainer, although this is my preferred method, may narrow their technique to the point of excluding any other possibilities. A trainer needs to be open to any technique that can work best for each individual dog while remembering to use the least intrusive effective behavior intervention possible.
Before choosing a trainer, find out what they mean by "all positive trainer" or "balanced trainer" or even "clicker trainer." The answer should be that your dog is going to enjoy the training as much as you do.
I want to leave you with two links.
This is another take on choosing a trainer:
http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/when-choosing-dog-trainer-buyer-beware
This is a great example on how to train a dog with an aggression problem:
http://drsophiayin.com/resources/video_full/counter-conditioning_a_dog_to_blowing_in_face
Well, a couple of things have gotten me thinking. If you read this blog regularly, you know last October I received my Dog Training Certificate from Companion Animals Sciences Institute (CASI). Since then I have been assisting at the Columbia Canine Sports Center (CCSC). I have the book learnin', now it's time to get the hands on experience.
Last week I sat through the orientation for students as a refresher and to get my next "assignment" for the next session with CCSC. I spoke with Kathy and Ginger after orientation and was surprised when they asked if I wanted to teach a class. After I was able to collect myself I told them I just needed a little time to get a lesson plan together but I'd be willing to give it a try. Truth be told, I'm very excited and very nervous about this, but I've started working on a lesson plan for a puppy class and basic obedience class and believe I'll be teaching next session.
What will be taught is the easy part. What I'm struggling with is the class discussions. I have so much information running around in my head from what I learned with CASI, blogs I read, videos I watch, journals I read, and other trainers I talk to. Not only am I trying to decide what to include, but how to keep it short, concise, and in a way that the students will retain the information.
The thing I've been thinking about the most is training methods. Not what method/s I intend to teach, but how I'll answer if someone asks when they should alpha roll their dog or what to do when their dog tries to dominate them. I saw a video the other day of a trainer touting the virtues of shock collars. These have many different names, but let's call them what they are. I was appalled that this trainer's (I wish I could remember his name, but I tried to erase it from my memory) technique was to slap a shock collar on a dog and call it training. The dogs are trained. A behavior is evoked in the presence of a stimuli, but where's the fun in that for anyone?
I have to wonder why some people get dogs. What's the point if the relationship is a constant struggle. I don't want to spend my time disciplining my dogs. I'd rather have a relationship with a dog who can think for himself and has learned how to make the right decision. I'd rather have a dog that looks to me for the right thing to do, not a dog that cowers because they aren't sure what to do.
I read and hear a lot of people say that dominance is the only thing that works on "red zone cases," but this is absolutely not the case. Most of the cases behaviorists see are aggression cases. The behaviorists I follow have been dealing with "red zone" cases longer than some tv personalities have been alive with as good or better rate of success. Most aggression in dogs stems from fear or insecurity. So first of all, what good is going to come from making a fear aggressive dog fear you? Second, if a fear aggressive dog is fearful, what is the natural response going to be except to protect himself. And third, if you use aversives to train a dog, if he doesn't totally shut down, or even if he does, there is the risk that eventually he will try to protect himself by aggressing. Why risk it when other, less aversive techniques are proven to work?
I personally don't believe you can be an all positive reinforcement trainer. It says to me that a dog can do no wrong or you totally ignore any inappropriate behavior. I would certainly not just sit and watch if one of my dogs raised his leg on the coffee table, for example. I also accept the fact that I use positive punishment - introducing a stimuli to lessen the frequency of a behavior. When I say "no" I've added a stimuli - the word - to lessen the frequency of a behavior - peeing on the coffee table. The most important thing is to use the "least intrusive effective behavior intervention" as James O'Heare calls it.
Why alpha roll your dog if he nips you when a sharp, quick cry of mock pain can teach him bite inhibition? Why use a shock collar to train your dog to sit when using a treat that can be faded can be used to lure him into position and he will learn to enjoy it? Why use aversives to teach an aggressive dog not to be aggressive when you can change the behavior instead of suppressing it by desensitizing him?
One of the things to look for in a trainer is their technique. I see a lot of trainers say positive reinforcement doesn't work, but shock collars do, choke chains do, or whatever method. Any training technique can work as defined above. The thing to remember is it's not an either/or decision.
Positive reinforcement can be clicker training, or target training for example. But you may also incorporate negative punishment - removing a stimuli to decrease the frequency of a behavior. An example of this might be turning your back to a dog - removing your attention - and crossing your arms when a dog jumps up on you. When searching for a trainer, remember that positive reinforcement is not a training method, it defines the method. Likewise, a clicker trainer, although this is my preferred method, may narrow their technique to the point of excluding any other possibilities. A trainer needs to be open to any technique that can work best for each individual dog while remembering to use the least intrusive effective behavior intervention possible.
Before choosing a trainer, find out what they mean by "all positive trainer" or "balanced trainer" or even "clicker trainer." The answer should be that your dog is going to enjoy the training as much as you do.
I want to leave you with two links.
This is another take on choosing a trainer:
http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/when-choosing-dog-trainer-buyer-beware
This is a great example on how to train a dog with an aggression problem:
http://drsophiayin.com/resources/video_full/counter-conditioning_a_dog_to_blowing_in_face
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Dogs walking ahead
This goes back to one of my favorite topics: dominance. Specifically, dogs walking ahead.
So, here's the scenario: I had stepped out of our walk-out basement the other day with Duncan, my Brittany. When we came in, Duncan went in the door first and went up the stairs ahead of me. How many indications of dominance do you see in this scenario?
Okay, I held a few things back, just to get to my point. First, consider locomotion, or the way we move. Bipedal locomotion is very impractical when compared to the alternative. Sure it has its advantages. Some scientist believe standing upright is a major contributing factor to our high intelligence as a species. But think about the species that can choose between walking on two legs or four. The first that come to my mind are bears and gorillas. When they want to move quickly or more efficiently they move on all fours.
Dogs are designed to move on all fours. They simply move faster than we do. How often have you seen someone chasing after a dog who is quickly outdistancing them? Consider that the second fastest land animal, after the Cheetah, is the dog - specifically the Greyhound.
So back to the previous scenario. When I was ready to go back inside, I called Duncan. He ran up to the door and I told him "back" so I could get the door open. I then told him "inside" because I didn't want to trip over him and the way the door is positioned it's awkward to hold it open while I wait for him to come in. He waited for me in the basement while I locked the door and when he saw me coming he started up the stairs. I'd rather have him go first than try to pass me because I'm slower than he is. He would walk up three or four steps, stop and look at me to check if I was still coming, up three or four more and check, all the way up. Even with his stopping and going, he still made it up the stairs much quicker than me.
All of this taken together does not at any time show a dominate dog. It shows my consideration for both of our safety and my understanding that this is a dog who can move more efficiently than I can. It does not show a dog who is trying to dominate me, but a dog who listens and constantly checks with me because he wants to be with me.
So, here's the scenario: I had stepped out of our walk-out basement the other day with Duncan, my Brittany. When we came in, Duncan went in the door first and went up the stairs ahead of me. How many indications of dominance do you see in this scenario?
Okay, I held a few things back, just to get to my point. First, consider locomotion, or the way we move. Bipedal locomotion is very impractical when compared to the alternative. Sure it has its advantages. Some scientist believe standing upright is a major contributing factor to our high intelligence as a species. But think about the species that can choose between walking on two legs or four. The first that come to my mind are bears and gorillas. When they want to move quickly or more efficiently they move on all fours.
Dogs are designed to move on all fours. They simply move faster than we do. How often have you seen someone chasing after a dog who is quickly outdistancing them? Consider that the second fastest land animal, after the Cheetah, is the dog - specifically the Greyhound.
So back to the previous scenario. When I was ready to go back inside, I called Duncan. He ran up to the door and I told him "back" so I could get the door open. I then told him "inside" because I didn't want to trip over him and the way the door is positioned it's awkward to hold it open while I wait for him to come in. He waited for me in the basement while I locked the door and when he saw me coming he started up the stairs. I'd rather have him go first than try to pass me because I'm slower than he is. He would walk up three or four steps, stop and look at me to check if I was still coming, up three or four more and check, all the way up. Even with his stopping and going, he still made it up the stairs much quicker than me.
All of this taken together does not at any time show a dominate dog. It shows my consideration for both of our safety and my understanding that this is a dog who can move more efficiently than I can. It does not show a dog who is trying to dominate me, but a dog who listens and constantly checks with me because he wants to be with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)