WebCanine.com » behavior

Dogs can learn object names

mom — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:35:51 +0000

Some Dogs May Understand That Our Sounds Refer To Particular Objects: Border Collie Comprehends Over 1,000 Object Names
08 Jan 2011

Researchers at Wofford College discovered that a Border Collie comprehends the names of over 1000 objects, differentiating between names of objects and orders to fetch them. This research deepens the findings of researchers in Germany, who had discovered a dog that knew the names of a couple of hundred objects. Important questions were left open as to how far a dog could go, and whether the dog really understood that the object names were nouns and not commands to retrieve the object. Medical News Today

John Pilley and Alliston Reid answered two central questions with their research: How large can a dog’s vocabulary become if given extensive training? What do dogs actually understand when we use human language to communicate with them? These findings are published in the Elsevier journal Behavioural Processes.

The authors demonstrated that their dog, Chaser, learned the names of 1022 objects – no upper limit is apparent – they stopped training the dog after three years due to their time constraints, not because the dog could not learn more names. This study demonstrates Chaser’s ability to learn the names of proper nouns, and her extensive vocabulary was tested repeatedly under carefully controlled conditions. The authors admitted that she remembered the names of each of her 1022 toys better than they could. Chaser’s ability to learn and remember more than 1000 proper nouns, each mapped to a unique object, revealed clear evidence of several capacities necessary for learning receptive human language: the ability to discriminate between 1022 different sounds representing names of objects, the ability to discriminate many objects visually, an extensive vocabulary, and a substantial memory system that allowed the mapping of many auditory stimuli to many visual stimuli.

Their second experiment demonstrated that Chaser really understands that these are names, and not commands to fetch the object. In order to test independence of meaning of nouns and commands, the authors randomly combined nouns with commands to see if Chaser would produce the correct behavior toward the correct object in each trial. Without special training, Chaser responded to each combination correctly, even on the first trial, demonstrating that Chaser understood that the commands and proper-noun names had independent meanings. The dog understands that names refer to particular objects, independent of the action requested involving that object.

Their third experiment demonstrated that the dog also understands names for categories of objects or common nouns, and not just individual names or proper nouns. For instance, she learned that name “toy” referred to the 1022 objects she was allowed to play with, each with a proper-noun name. By forming categories represented by common nouns, Chaser mapped one label onto many objects. Chaser also demonstrated that she could map up to three labels onto the same object without error. For example, Chaser knew the proper-noun names of all objects used in the research. Chaser also mapped the common noun “toy” onto these same objects. Her additional success with the two common nouns “ball” and “frisbee” demonstrates that she mapped a third label onto these objects. Her demonstrations of one-to-many and many-to-one noun/object mappings reveal flexibility in the referential nature of words in border collies.

Each of these experiments showed that the dog could learn names using procedures involving associative learning. Their fourth experiment demonstrated that Chaser could also learn names by exclusion – inferred the name of a novel object by exclusion of familiar already-named objects. Retention of these names using this procedure was limited to short periods, however, just as usually observed with children.

According to Alliston Reid, “This research is important because it demonstrates that dogs, like children, can develop extensive vocabularies and understand that certain words represent individual objects and other words represent categories of objects, independent in meaning of what one is asked to do with those objects.”

Additional research is needed to determine whether these impressive language abilities are shared by other breeds of dogs. This work encourages research into how the historical relationships between humans and dogs may have influenced the abilities of dogs to communicate with humans, and whether this influence is unique to dogs.

Notes:
“Border collie comprehends object names as verbal referents” by John Pilley and Alliston Reid. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2010.11.007

About the authors
John W. Pilley, Ph.D. is a retired professor of psychology at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC, where this study was completed.

Alliston K. Reid, Ph.D. is Reeves Family Professor of Psychology at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC, and currently serves as president of the Society for the Quantitative Analyses of Behavior.
Source: Francesca Webb …Elsevier
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213040.php

Animal Behavior Resource

admin — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:22:15 +0000

http://abrionline.org/articles.php

new animal behavior resource information page from veterinary non-profit, articles and resources to help understand . . . → Read More: Animal Behavior Resource

What Really Prompts The Dog’s ‘Guilty Look’

admin — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:58:34 +0000

ScienceDaily (June 14, 2009)’ What dog owner has not come home to a broken vase or other valuable items and a guilty-looking dog slouching around the house? By ingeniously setting up conditions where the owner was misinformed as to whether their dog had really committed an offense, Alexandra Horowitz, Assistant Professor from Barnard College in New York, uncovered the origins of the guilty look in dogs in the recently published Canine Behaviour and CognitionSpecial Issue of Elsevies’s Behavioural Processes.

Horowitz was able to show that the human tendency to attribute a guilty look to a dog was not due to whether the dog was indeed guilty. Instead, people see ˜guilt in a dog’s body language when they believe the dog has done something it shouldn’t have ‘ even if the dog is in fact completely innocent of any offense.

During the study, owners were asked to leave the room after ordering their dogs not to eat a tasty treat. While the owner was away, Horowitz gave some of the dogs this forbidden treat before asking the owners back into the room. In some trials the owners were told that their dog had eaten the forbidden treat; in others, they were told their dog had behaved properly and left the treat alone. What the owners were told, however, often did not correlate with reality.

Whether the dogs’ demeanor included elements of the “guilty look” had little to do with whether the dogs had actually eaten the forbidden treat or not. Dogs looked most guilty if they were admonished by their owners for eating the treat. In fact, dogs that had been obedient and had not eaten the treat, but were scolded by their (misinformed) owners, looked more guilty than those that had, in fact, eaten the treat. Thus the dog’s guilty look is a response to the owner’s behavior, and not necessarily indicative of any appreciation of its own misdeeds.

This study sheds new light on the natural human tendency to interpret animal behavior in human terms. Anthropomorphisms compare animal behavior to human behavior, and if there is some superficial similarity, then the animal behavior will be interpreted in the same terms as superficially similar human actions. This can include the attribution of higher-order emotions such as guilt or remorse to the animal.

The editor of the special issue, Clive D.L. Wynne of the Department of Psychology, University of Florida, explained, this is a remarkably powerful demonstration of the need for careful experimental designs if we are to understand the human-dog relationship and not just reify our natural prejudices about animal behavior.He pointed out that dogs are the oldest domesticated species and have a uniquely intimate role in the lives of millions of people. Recent research on dogs has indicated more human-like forms of reasoning about what people know than has been demonstrated even in chimpanzees.

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Elsevier, via AlphaGalileo.

Journal Reference:

1. Horowitz et al. Disambiguating the ‘guilty look’;: Salient prompts to a familiar dog behaviour. Behavioural Processes, 2009; 81 (3): 447 DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2009.03.014<

AVSAB position statement on punishment for behavior modification

mom — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:59:29 +0000

The AVSAB’s position is that punishment (e.g. choke chains, pinch collars, and electronic collars) should not be used as a first-line or early-use treatment for behavior problems. This is due to the potential adverse effects which include but are not limited to: inhibition of learning, increased fear-related and aggressive behaviors, and injury to animals and people interacting with animals.

http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline

Adverse Effects of Punishment

AVSAB recommends that training should focus on reinforcing desired behaviors, removing the reinforcer for inappropriate behaviors, and addressing the emotional state and environmental
conditions driving the undesirable behavior. This approach promotes a better understanding of the pet’s behavior and better awareness of how humans may have inadvertently contributed to the development of the undesirable behavior. Punishment should only be used when the above approach has failed despite an adequate effort as part of a larger training or behavior modification program that incorporates reinforcement of appropriate behaviors and works to change the underlying cause of the problem behavior.

AVSAB recognizes that both positive reinforcement and punishment require significant skill, effort, and awareness on the owner’s part. Both must be applied as the animal is performing the target behavior or within one second of the behavior to be most effective. Additionally, both work best when applied every time the behavior occurs so that the animal is not inadvertently rewarded for undesirable behavior during the modification process. If punishment is added to a modification plan, it should only be used if the owner has first demonstrated reasonable ability and consistency at rewarding appropriate behaviors and removing the reward for bad behaviors. Guidelines for The Use of Punishment for Behavior Modification in Animals

If punishment is suggested as part of a complete behavior modification plan, owners should not begin using it until they have ensured that the person helping them is able to articulate the major adverse effects of punishment, judge when these effects are occurring over the short term and long term, and can explain how they will reverse the adverse effects if they occur.<

AVSAB statement on effects of punishment

mom — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:48:21 +0000

American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior
Position Statement on Adverse effects of Punishment

http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=118

Adverse Effects of Punishment

Punishment can be effective in specific cases, but it must be used carefully due to the difficulties of performing it properly compared to positive reinforcement and due to its potential adverse effects. The following is a description of the difficulties and adverse effects that one should be aware of when using punishment (aversives).

Itâ€™s difficult to time punishment correctly: In order for the animal to understand what it is doing wrong, the punishment must be timed to occur: while the behavior is occurring, within 1 second, or at least before the next behavior occurs.

Punishment can strengthen the undesired behavior: In order for punishment to affect a lasting change, it should occur every time the undesirable behavior occurs. If the animal is not punished every time, then the times it is not being punished, it is actually receiving a reward. Additionally these rewards are on a variable rate of reinforcement (i.e. inconsistent punishment), which may actually strengthen the undesirable behavior. Variable rate of reinforcement is a powerful reinforcement schedule that is used to maintain behaviors trained with positive reinforcement the animals know the reward will occur eventually, but since they don’t know which time the reward will come, they keep performing the behavior with the expectation of an eventual reward. Thus the animals become like gamblers playing the slot machine.

The intensity of the punishment must be high enough: For punishment to be effective, it must be strong enough the first time. If the intensity is not high enough, the animal may get used to it (habituate), so that the same intensity no longer works. Then, the owner must escalate the intensity in order for the punishment to be effective. No matter when it is administered, punishment may cause physical harm or fear when used at the required intensity for learning to occur

Punishment may cause physical harm when administered at high intensity: Many punishments can cause physical harm to the animal. Choke chains can damage the trachea, especially in the many dogs with collapsing tracheas or hypoplastic tracheas. They can also occasionally cause Hornerâ€™s syndrome (damage to the nerve to the eye). Some dogs, especially brachycephalic breeds, have developed sudden life-threatening pulmonary edema, possibly due to the sudden upper airway obstruction leading to a rapid swing in intrathoracic pressure. And dogs prone to glaucoma may be more susceptible to the disorder since pressure by collars around the neck can increase intraocular pressure.

Regardless of the strength, punishment can cause some individuals to become extremely fearful, and this fear can generalize to other contexts: Some punishments may not cause physical harm and may not seem severe, but they can cause the animal to become fearful, and this fear may generalize to other contexts. For instance, some dogs on which the citronella or electronic collar are used with a preceding tone may react fearfully to alarm clocks, smoke detectors, or egg timers.

Punishment can facilitate or even cause aggressive behavior: Punishment has been shown to increase the likelihood of aggressive behavior in many species. Animals in which the punishment does not immediately suppress the behavior may escalate in their efforts to avoid the punishment to the point where they become aggressive. Those who already show aggressive behavior may exhibit more intense and injurious aggressive behaviors.

Punishment can suppress behaviors, including those behaviors that warn that a bite may occur: When used effectively, punishment can suppress the behavior of fearful or aggressive animals, but it may not change the association underlying the behavior. Thus, it may not address the underlying problem. For instance, if the animal is aggressive due to fear, then the use of force to stop the fearful reactions will make the dog more fearful while at the same time suppressing or masking the outward signs of fear. Once it can no longer suppress its fear, the animal may suddenly act with heightened aggression and with fewer warning signs of impending aggression. In other words, it may now attack with no warning.

Punishment can lead to a bad association: Regardless of the strength of the punishment, punishment can cause animals to develop a negative association with the person implementing it or the environment in which the punishment is used. For instance, when punishment is used for training dogs to come when called, the dogs may learn to come at a trot or walk (or cower while approaching) rather than returning to the owners at a fast run as if they enjoy returning to their owners. Or when punishment is used during obedience competition training or agility training for competitions, dogs may perform the exercises with lack of enthusiasm. This negative association is particularly clear when the dog immediately becomes energetic once the exercise is over and it is allowed to play. Pets are not the only ones who can develop a negative association from this process. Owners may develop a negative association, too. When owners use punishment, they are often angry, thus the expression of force is reinforcing to them because it temporarily decreases their anger. They may develop a habit of frequently becoming angry with their pet because it â€œmisbehavesâ€ in spite of their punishment. This may damage the bond with their pet.

Punishment does not teach more appropriate behaviors: One of the most important problems with punishment is that it does not address the fact that the undesirable behavior occurs because it has been reinforcedâ€” either intentionally or unintentionally. The owner may punish the bad behavior some of the time, while inadvertently reinforcing the bad behavior at other times. From the dogâ€™s view, the owner is inconsistent and unpredictably forceful or coercive. These characteristics can hinder the pet/human bond. A more appropriate approach to problem solving is to focus on reinforcing a more appropriate behavior. Owners should determine whatâ€™s reinforcing the undesirable behavior, remove that reinforcement, and reinforce an alternate appropriate behavior instead. This leads to a better understanding of why animals behave as they do and leads to a better relationship with the animal.<

How to have a good dog

mom — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 17:27:31 +0000

(Thanks to Christy Hill for this great post on how to select a good dog. Her post was specifically in regard to service dogs; but is so applicable to all areas of dog training and behavior that we have re-posted it here.)

Posted by: “Christy Hill” care4k9@att.net
Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:33 am (PST)

Outside of picking a good line, health checks and good temperament testing screening….now not really selection, but a VERY important part of training a service animal….let’s look at us, the handler…

I have been training my own hearing dogs for 20 years and right now on my 5th hearing dog. I’ve worked through SEVERAL dogs over the years. What I find with self-trainers (me included) that with young dogs we expect WAAAAYYY too much out of them. When they don’t do “model” service dog behavior, our emotions and mood changes which I believe goes right down that leash to the dog. Self-trainers tend to start over analyzing and flop back and forth when they see “ONE” behavior…oh, they did that and it was bad…maybe they shouldn’t be a service dog, then we see them do something good…OH!!! they did that perfect, maybe they can be a service dog. I’ve seen this back and forth with SEVERAL people.

I think what is important with a young pup is to LET THEM BE A DOG!!!! Let them EXPLORE their environment to learn what works and doesn’t work. It isn’t the time to expect them not to interact with their environment by being good well behaved dog. I’m not saying the dog should be a maniac and shouldn’t learn “basic” manners, but shouldn’t be pushed to be perfect little service dogs. Don’t have them be in second grade and expect them to act like an 8th grader.

If they do something you don’t want, DON’T get upset! We may THINK we are not showing our dog our disappointment, but dogs can read our emotions better than WE do! I’ve learned a lot about myself by watching my dogs since they are responsive to my actions. It is amazing.

During the ages of about 7 months to 9 or 10 months is about the second fear period. They will do weird things at this time. This isn’t grounds for washing out, this is time to chill out and let your dog figure things out with CONFIDENCE. The more you expect them NOT to bark and try to suppress this behavior, the more they will do it and get stressed. This isn’t the time to be taking a pup EVERYWHERE! Nor is it time to expect your young puppy to act like a service dog in training. This is the time to LET THEM BE A PUPPY! You do train and channel behaviors, shape them, nurture them and let them EXPLORE their world to learn about it.

I can’t stress the importance of this because again, I’ve seen myself, many friends and many other people wash (out) dogs or stress dogs out because the handler put too much expectation on a dog too young. Now training a behavior is one thing, expecting a dog to do this in a stressful working environment is another. I wouldn’t expect a pup to do model service dog behavior until about 18 months.

Enjoy life with a young pup, let them grow up and have fun, then when the time is right, about 18 months, then do the right assessment of your dog. DO NOT over analyze before hand. (This does not include a dog that has developed very serious behavioral roblems, then yes do a career change for the dog).

Now go out and play some FUN puppy games!!

Detector dog duty cycle

mom — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:24:48 +0000

Excerpts: Dogs have been used successfully for years by military and law enforcement. Dogs and their handlers are the most widely used, accurate, durable and flexible system available for detecting illegal drugs and explosives. A critical aspect of canine performance is their effective duty cycle.

Duty Cycle of the Detector Dog

A baseline study funded by a grant from the FAA

Duty cycle of the detection dog refers to the amount of time the dog will work without observed deterioration in its detection performance. Not only is the duty cycle defined by actual performance, hits, misses, false alarms, but also by rate of searching and willingness to search. Traditionally, within the canine detection community the most frequently stated duty cycle is 30 minutes. However, within the context of the study; the maximum effective duty cycle under moderate environmental conditions was at least 91-120 minutes of continues searching. Data show that elapsed search time, total search duration, and search order were not related to probability of detection. In summary, the data showed that all four dogs were willing and able to work as long as asked, the dogs did not provide their own limits. The conditions of the study did not exceed their capabilities to work for extended periods. Variables were heat, humidity, body temperature, size of search setting and number and distribution of hides.

full article: duty cycle

Govt. scent detection dogs

mom — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:22:11 +0000

ORLANDO, Fla. Under the watchful eye of their trainer, two diminutive beagles are working their way past suitcases randomly laced with beef, pork, apples, citrus and mangoes.
Trainers look for a physically healthy dog with a strong desire to hunt and retrieve objects and then seek to channel that desire. Many programs prefer traditional police dogs or retrievers and sporting breeds, although mutts and Jack Russell terriers, as well as beagles, are also used.
Despite the growth in number and applications of dogs for detection work, little research has been conducted into their capabilities and olfactory processes. Even less is understood about the complex dance of dog and handler, although that dynamic can have a profound affect on success rates, Dr. Myers said.
The few studies that have been conducted indicate that a well- trained dog and accomplished handler can achieve an accuracy rate of about 95 percent, significantly better than any machine. But, Dr. Myers said, any combination of a bad dog and bad handler can drop that figure to around 60 percent.
For example, dogs can learn to respond to unconscious cues from trainers and end up searching for objects they are not trained to find. They also can stop performing well if not properly stimulated and rewarded for their efforts. Temperature and humidity can affect a dog’s ability to smell, as well.
Dr. Gary Settles, professor of mechanical engineering at Penn State, says his research suggests that when a dog inhales, the alar fold, a bulbous obstruction just inside its nostrils, opens to allow air to flow clearly through the upper part of the nose across the mucus-covered scent receptors.
When air is exhaled, the alar fold closes off the top part and directs air down and out through the slits at the side of the dog’s nose, Dr. Settles said. The process creates a kind of suction that helps the dog inhale even more odor-laced air while also stirring up particles that might help deliver more scent.
Once inside the nose, chemical vapors and, perhaps, tiny particles dissolve in mucus-covered olfactory receptors, which in dogs number around 220 million (roughly 40 times the number found in humans), Dr. Myers said. The chemical interactions are converted to electrical signals that travel along the olfactory nerve to the olfactory bulb and then to nearly all parts of the dog’s brain.
Dogs and other animals that rely heavily on the sense of smell can identify odors concentrated in an object or piece of ground as small as a dime, Dr. Settles said, teasing from it all sorts of information.
Scent receptors in insects generally are sensitive to particular pheromones that bring about specific behaviors, said Dr. John Kauer, professor of neuroscience at the Tufts University School of Medicine.
But in dogs and many other animals, individual receptors in the nose can become sensitive to a number of different, unrelated chemicals, Dr. Kauer added. That system creates patterns of odor signals that are then processed in the brain, in ways still not understood, to allow the animal to identify an object and its status and respond accordingly.
Several other biological systems are involved in smell in ways not fully understood. For example, dogs have an organ above the roof of the mouth, behind the incisors. Over the years, many people have suggested that this so-called vomeronasal organ detects pheromones, but researchers say there is no solid evidence of that.
Dr. Kauer is using knowledge of how dogs smell to build an artificial nose for detecting land mines, but so far his best effort is only a tenth as good as a trained dog, he said.
Dr. Myers has shown that scent emanates from an object in a plume that swirls and eddies in a turbulent flow so that there are patches of dense odor and areas of faint odor. In working, a dog quickly scans back and forth with its nose, scanning those densities, until it comes to what it thinks is the source.
That may not always be the object itself, Dr. Myers said. Rather, because of air flow, the source could be in an upper floor of a building or the opposite side of the room. Skilled handlers confirm that their dogs have detected scents emanating from distant sources.
Yet it is also not uncommon for dogs encountering a room full of drugs or a bag loaded with, say, suspect mangoes to fail to alert their handlers. Although the reasons are unclear, the odor in those cases may be so overpowering and evenly distributed around the room that the detector dogs cannot pinpoint the source, Dr. Myers suggested, so they do nothing.
Also, their noses can become saturated with particular odors and desensitized to them, he said. Then, the dog literally needs time to purge the odor-laden mucus from its nose.
Dr. Myers said recent research suggested that two different dogs trained in the same way could respond to entirely different chemical components of an odor and that the components to which they respond could change over time.
The study has clear implications for a dog’s success rate because if it is keying on an already faint chemical, when the amount of the substance decreases, the dog may miss detecting it, Dr. Myers said.
That finding and others, researchers say, also point to the danger of using pseudo scents, which are training aids developed to replicate the primary chemical composition of a drug or explosive.
Although the Beagle Brigade trains on actual food, other detection dogs rely on those pseudo scents, but because their chemical composition is limited, it is often difficult for dogs to generalize from those artificial compounds to the actual substances, where chemicals interact and play off each other to form a complex bouquet.
Over the years, researchers have trained rats, ferrets and other animals to detect explosives and drugs with success equal to that of dogs. Used to hunt truffles, pigs are well known for their olfactory acuity.
But people have always returned to dogs for detection work, not only because of their ability to discriminate between odors but also because, in their long association with humans, they have been bred for sociability and trainability.
NY TIMES Science deptMay 29, 2001
With Training, a Dog’s Nose Almost Always Knows
By MARK DERR<

Police K-9 bldg search

mom — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:15:11 +0000

The building search is one of the most important functions performed by the patrol dog. The dog is performing the search under conditions that are very dangerous for the handler and is extremely dangerous for non canine personnel.

U.S. Police K-9 Bldg Search Training (redacted)
orig:http://www.uspcak9.com/training/johnskalskibuildingsearch.shtml(no longer active)

Before the building search training is started the dog must be proficient in the following:

1. Biting solid on a sleeve
2. Doing off lead apprehensions
3. Proficient in the out

We must also be aware that the dog will use whatever sense is most convenient for him when performing any function, including the building search. It is our responsibility to ensure that the dog becomes extremely proficient in the use of his nose to detect people in a building. The nose is used almost exclusively to at least locate the subject in a certain area of the building, and the other senses then may come into play by narrowing the area and helping to find the subject.
Training The Building Search
As mentioned in the introduction there are some requirements that should be met before starting the building search training. With the bite being used as the primary reward in training, …For the dog to have made it through the requirements of the bite work we now know that the drive to hunt and chase is strong or at least adequate. In a majority of cases the dog has already done nose work to some degree thereby tuning and creating intensity in his olfactory work.

He is checking closed doors that are slightly ajar, with his nose, in an attempt to locate the decoy. It is somewhere near this point that every now and then we have a dog that may bark at a door, either before he checks it or after, and it’s the wrong door. We DO NOT CORRECT THE DOG WITH NEGATIVE. We have seen in the past that the dog does not realize what the correction is for. Is it for going out to search? Is it for barking? Is it for being by a door?

As we make progress in the intensity, length of search, use of the nose and some semblance of a pattern, we will want to have the dog search certain areas that he may have missed. Most dogs when released will charge out and search, missing some areas. We consider this common behavior and like to see this type of enthusiasm and intensity.

Upon your entry into any building you should be aware of heat and air conditioning use and the effect it could be having on the distribution of scent in an area. The reaction of the dog may be confusing in his indication of his attempt to locate the subject;e.g.: circling in the middle of the floor with his head up in the air. Realizing that he is having difficulty we should be able to figure out the possible reason and a probable location of the suspect (s). You should also be aware through training of the possible effects in a open type building, for example a warehouse with broken windows, on a cool or cold night when it’s windy. A dog must be worked on these type of searches to hone his skills, just as he improves with the increasing difficulty of tracks and other exercises.

We should also work our dogs in places that have many different and strong smells, tire stores, supermarkets, paint shops, etc. Practice in them and learn.

Reminders/Suggestions
A good exercise in familiarity for the dog is to actually do the bite work in the building you are going to start your building searches in before you begin. This helps the dogs confidence and introduces him to the different surface under comfortable and familiar circumstances.

There is no harm in using the same building for the majority of the training. This allows the dog to concentrate on learning because he is comfortable.

Do low searches behind doors before high searches. It promotes and teaches the dog to use his nose. The other way does not create the intensity. But you must teach the high search later.

Keep in mind that all is not what it appears to be. Some doors inhale yet the door only 10 feet away may be exhaling. There is no set rules for this phenomenon.

Don’t forget to pay special attention to cold air returns. If someone crawls into one you may not get an alert or it may be at the furnace.

Remember if we run into a problem with the dog we should go back to basics. Putting the dog on a leash or backing up the process to correct a problem is nothing but good dog training. It does not show any weakness in the dog or the training but good common sense.

By keeping the situations as realistic as possible we sometimes forget the time before and leading up to the search. ..
An important factor in creating the previously mentioned condition is a proper mind set. What we should try to do is to actually believe and act as if each search in practice is real. This ability to act and make the dog think the situations are real separates the good handlers from the ordinary.

Remember, they call it the canine team! The dog can do things that you can’t and you can do things that he can’t, like think. Direct him to areas he hasn’t searched and remember he only does what the brains of the operation tells him to do.

Emotional status & learning ability

mom — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:10:38 +0000

Relationship between Emotional Status and the Cognitive & Learning Abilities of Domestic Canines
by Iain Macdonald
Modal Theory:http://www.dogstuff.info/modal_theory_macdonald.html
Contents:IntroductionWhat is a Mode?What is a Drive?What is a Modal Threshold?Prey ModeSocial ModeDefence ModeModal Theory Training ApplicationsSummary
IntroductionThe Modal theory is a theoretical framework, which seeks to explain the extent to which canine behaviour, cognition, and learning are influenced by emotional status. It puts forward the concept that the emotional reactivity causes a prioritization of environmental events/information. Such a prioritization ensures the dog treats all information with regards to relevance according to its emotional status at the time. This adaptive mechanism of information processing is vital for the survival of the dog in its natural state and is a powerful tool to be used in training the domestic canine.
What is a Mode?A mode is an operational frame of mind the dog works in. This operational frame of mind will prioritize items/events in the dog’s mind relevant to the mode in which the dog is currently operating. This mode is also easily described as an emotional state of mind. A mode does not lessen the cognitive abilities of the dog; rather it prioritizes the information to assist the cognitive functioning of the dog. Modes are often termed as drives in dog training literature but this implies an instinctive/automatic reactionary process that fails to fully encompass the workings of the dogs mind whilst in this state. Such terminology also makes it very difficult to quantify between innate potential and emotional responsiveness. It is often argued in scientific circles that true instincts are very rare and can be best described as chains of behaviours that we do not yet fully understand. There are three major modes the dog works in: defence, prey and social. The primary reason for all three modes of behaviour is to ensure the survival of the individual.
What is a Drive?Frequently mentioned in this article is the term drive, this refers to the innate reactivity potential of the dog in each of the three operational modes. This does not imply that the threshold is innate, it is a learned response, but frequently high or extreme drive dogs do have a low threshold. This innate potential can be impacted upon in critical periods of the pup’s development. This impact can be positive or negative. A breeder which encourages retrieval in their pups when young (early as 4 weeks) will tend to produce high drive dogs, provided that a balance is reached in this building so as not to bore the dog, whereby the impact will be negative and the dogs innate drive will be lowered. A breeder who does not encourage such activities in the dog will tend to produce dogs of lower drive.
This impact on the innate potential of the dog is again basically a survival-orientated mechanism. If the dog has inborn potential but this is not encouraged by its environment it will tend to be lost or impeded as the drive is not required, or at least not in its upper levels for the dogs survival. This is the natural adaptively of the dog coming into play. Interesting to note is that early Swedish research pointed to the fact that high prey drives or at least a high retrieval drive was indicative of a highly trainable dog. This is supported by this theory as well except it is not the fact that a dog has a high drive which makes it a trainable dog per say, rather it is the ease in which the dog can be rewarded without confusion we see as the contributing factor. Either way, highly driven dogs are certainly more easily trained than less driven counterparts.
As stated high drives can be very desirable in a training sense. Indicators of high drives are as follows:
* Prey: retrieval, chasing, possessiveness, etc.* Social: strong bonding, separation anxiety, etc.* Defence: aggression, high reactivity to threatening stimuli, protectiveness.
It should also be noted that whilst most working competitions now are consistently won by dogs which have drives which can be described as extreme and such drives are highly desirable in top level sport and working dogs, such dogs would not make good family pets. There is a fine line between extreme drives and neurotic behaviours and as such, an extremely driven dog, which does not have outlets for its innate drives, can easily become neurotic. Extremely driven dogs have almost a pathological need to work in that mode; a fanatical retriever that will physically attack a wall to get a toy is an example. This dog would not make a good pet and most breeders would consider it has poor temperament. This is not the case, the dog has an extreme drive and needs to work in this particular mode, training can modify it but such a dog is exactly what the Customs service considers to be a good candidate. A detection dog must operate at this extreme level or it will be less effective. This dog is quite stable when given an outlet for its innate needs; in fact, it is a willing worker, which is capable of cognitive processes while working far beyond those of less driven dogs. Neurotic behaviours will occur as its innate potential is ignored and other environmental factors attempt to over modify the animals behaviour causing the dog to internalize its need for outlet in the particular mode.
In the case of mature dogs drives which have appeared to be non-existent can be built on but at no time will the mature dog ever regain the maximum potential it had as a pup if it is not encouraged through its critical periods. We can teach a dog to fetch but we cannot make an extremely driven dog from him if he wasn’t born that way. The handlerâ€™s ability also plays a considerable role, if the handler is able to provide support for the less driven dog prior to the dog losing motivation the dog can be carried along to perform at levels which are actually higher than its innate potential. Such environmental factors make it very difficult to describe drives with any degree of accuracy and makes assessment that much more difficult.
Drives should not ever be seen as a negative part of a dog but should definitely be considered when choosing a dog. Most people are unable to successfully handle an extremely driven dog without significant professional assistance. This would be the major reason why world-class working kennels are very particular where their pups are being homed. In the wrong hands, their world-class dog becomes a public nuisance. In this example, the fault lies not with the dog but with the handlerâ€™s failure to: (1) be able to handle the dog, and (2) choose a dog which suits his or her own needs and abilities. A versatile dog will not necessarily be extremely driven; in fact, extreme drive if not backed by excellent handling skills and a balanced training program will frequently work against the dog. A highly driven but balanced dog should be the aim of all kennels apart from those, which specifically specialize in producing dogs designed to work in specialized areas.
What is a Modal Threshold?A modal threshold is the level of stimulation of the innate drive required by the dog to switch into the most appropriate mode, emotive state, so as to best react to the current situation. These thresholds or triggers are always self-regulated. As trainers, we cannot externally force a dog to adopt a particular threshold to suit our needs. However, through conditioning that involves withholding of the appropriate reward (the dogs desired behaviour); we can teach the dog to regulate its own threshold to suit our needs. In scent work, we require a low prey threshold (we want the dog to switch to prey mode rapidly) but in obedience, we require a far higher threshold to maintain control during heeling (we want the dog to resist the switch to prey until it has completed exactly what it is we want). In bite work, we require different thresholds for different exercises. Guarding an object requires a far higher threshold (resist the trigger) of defence than a face attack does (rapidly trigger).
Thresholds are activated or triggered at the emotional level of the dog. Each of the three modes has a particular emotive state that will immediately switch the dog over to the most appropriate mode for the current situation. These emotional states and their triggering emotions are: defence – fear, social – security, and prey – excitement. Of particular importance when assessing the integrity of this information is to understand that during the domestication process we have altered the dog significantly from its wild ancestors by encouraging and selectively breeding for individuals which retain many infantile behaviours throughout their lifespan. This has significantly impacted upon the dog in the prey mode, as such instead of the true emotive response of hunger a state of excitement/playfulness is now the trigger.
This alteration through domestication is understandable when a person realizes that it is largely through the medium of play that a wild dog learns its hunting skills (such behaviours are not as once thought, instinctive). It would then stand to reason that if we have retained the infantile state to a large degree that the dog which has no real needs to hunt its own food would retain the infantile trigger for such behaviour throughout its life. It is also fair to say that dogs with extreme drives in the prey area will tend also to be triggered by the more traditional hunting triggers. This can lead to owners having greater degrees of difficulty in controlling such extreme drive dogs and is why such dogs should not really be considered good candidate for family pets.
Prey ModeIn prey mode the dog will give a greater priority to events which are relevant to that mode such as rapid sideways movement, the desire to chase, etc. It should be again noted that a mode does not affect the cognitive abilities of the dog; rather, it prioritizes what is happening in the dog’s environment with relation to the mode it is in. A dog in prey mode will still use its cognitive abilities to think its way through events to best achieve the result it desires (i.e., the raising and lowering of the threshold or trigger for a desired behaviour). A dog will voluntarily control the desire to chase a prey object until it in itself is reasonably sure that the chances of this chase being successful are relatively high. Failure to do so would impact on the viability of survival for the individual. This internal control is a learned feature based on the particular experiences of the individual in question. The classic example of this mode in the wild state is the rapid escape of a rabbit as it bursts for cover will trigger a response in the dog to chase. In a training sense, the throwing of the object is what we use to lead a dog into retrieval exercises, be they for formal training or play. This rapid movement is triggering the dog’s emotional response in exactly the same way as the fleeing rabbit.
Social ModeSocial mode is the most common mode in which a dog will operate. In this mode, the emphasis is placed on the dogs pack. Dogs have an innate need to belong to a pack, domestication has not altered this requirement rather it has incorporated humans into the dogs view of its pack. All control exerted by the handler is achieved through social mode. Such control is achieved by the handler acting as a superior of the dog’s own pack and making a request of a subordinate. The dog’s compliance to such a request is attained by the dog acknowledging the handler’s social superiority. The dog’s innate need for the security of its position in a pack is the trigger for this mode.
Defence ModeDefence mode is always responsible for aggression, unless such aggression is of psychotic nature. All forms of aggression are triggered by a fear of something; this fear need not be directly attributed to the recipient of the aggression personally. Fear can be felt if the dogâ€™s position in the pack is threatened, a member of the pack is threatened, the packs territory is threatened, etc. As fear is such a black word in the dog world, this must be heavily stressed. A dominant dog for example will switch from social to defence anytime it feels that its position in the pack is under threat. It is not necessarily scared of the transgressor more it is fearful of the loss of station. Interestingly to note is that nearly all forms of non-psychotic aggression noted by canine research derive from a switch from social mode to defence mode. The exception being predatory aggression required for the acquisition of food. However, fear is also involved here, as the dog will be fearful of not being able to eat. It could also be argued that the social concerns of the pack also play a part in this as well but as yet this still remains very unclear. With this in mind, it brings the practice of training bite work from a prey basis into question as the ideal model of education for this activity. Surely an approach from a social mode would be more relative to the dog and would give an increased aggressive response and yet improve the control level of the dog in call off exercises.
Modal Theory Training ApplicationsTo consider the impact of this theory on how we approach the training of the dog we should consider what mode the dog must be in to comply with what we have asked of it. We then must also accept as fact that since the purpose of the mode is to priorities events relative to the dogâ€™s needs it would be impossible for the dog to operate in two modes simultaneously. As a result, we can theorize that a dog is able to rapidly switch from one mode to another and back again as is required to best priorities the situation, relative to its emotional state to obtain the highest degree of success for the activity the dog is engaged in.
An example of this would be that handler control is achieved through the social mode. A handler is using its higher position in the hierarchy to control the subordinate dog. As the required action will impact on the dogs security with in the pack (its acceptance, position, etc) the dog will switch from either prey or defence to the social mode to comply as the priority in this mode will give issues relative to the dogs security within its social system greater importance than the other two modes would. It should be noted very clearly that in this area, force could have a very negative effect. If the dog reacts through fear, he is not in social mode; he is in defence. Whilst the dog may comply out of fear of retribution, it has not necessarily accepted the higher position of the handler. This is why force is not a valid way to ensure domination of a dog.
A practical example of a switch to social mode triggered by issues of security is the call off from attack. A dog chasing a fleeing decoy is in prey mode as it nears the decoy it switches to defence mode to attack, when the handler calls it off it must switch back to social mode to comply with the wishes of its superior for the same reasons stated above. Fear of the handler has nothing to do with it and could not be used to obtain the result at best what you would get would be a dog which will bite and then let go only if the handler was close enough to intervene. This again is not the dog acknowledging a higher authority rather the dog giving way to superior force (avoidance).
Prey mode is responsible for play in the domesticated dog for reasons explained above. All play regardless of which mode the participants were in initially is carried out in prey mode. In play within a social setting, the play bow and other actions elicit a prey response from the recipient. There is also some research currently underway which suggests that the production of hormones also have a part to play through the sense of smell. These actions trigger the emotive response so that the recipient is able to undertake the correct behavioural response. Failure to respond to such a trigger could engage the defence trigger and a fight would result. This mode is the primary mode within which we will reward our dogs for correct completion of exercises, as the dog cannot feel anxiety whilst in this mode. Prey mode is still also triggered by food. This is the last remnant of true prey mode left from the domestication process. For some individuals this part of prey is a lot stronger than the desire to chase. I’d still speculate however, given that our dogs are well fed, that the enjoyment from food used in training is still based on the excitement of the dog pleasing the pack leader and as such still constitutes modified play behaviour. By switching our dogs to prey mode at the completion of an exercise we are clearly displaying to the dogs that we are happy with them. This lack of confusion is why dogs trained in this manner are a lot happier in their work and have improved handler bonds over the more institutionalized systems.
It is also important to note is that whilst a dog can only operate in a single mode at a time, the influences on a dog in one mode can effect the threshold of another mode. This does not imply that one mode or another is consistently more important to the dog, rather that a dog controls the thresholds of each mode to suit the individual circumstances it is currently in. In obedience heeling exercises, we use the social mode to increase the threshold of triggering the prey response. This allows us to hold the dogs focus on the task at hand until we release it at the completion of the desired exercise. If a prey object such as a retrieval toy is used as the motivator for the dog to respond we use the social mode, which is our position with relation to the dog in the hierarchy to stop the dog from switching to prey mode until we release the dog by throwing the article for it. In such circumstances, the dog must raise the threshold to achieve the results desired by a superior before being able to switch over to prey mode and play with the prey object the way it desires. This is copying the method used by pack superiors in wolf packs to hold younger, lower ranked dogs from spoiling a planned stalk.
This is as close to setting the thresholds as we can come, but it is still a judgment call from the dog, which actually sets the threshold. We show our disappointment if they get it wrong by withholding the reward and making the dog go through the exercise again. This way the dog soon learns to wait until it is allowed to switch, this is true control. We have all seen dogs that have low thresholds unable to complete the scenario given. The handler is unable to switch the dog to social mode where by he can control the dog. In such cases, the handler must look to ways in which he can maintain the dog in social mode when the prey object is in sight. This is achieved very gradually by withholding the reward from the dog until he has remained in social mode for gradually increasing periods of time. The dog learns to heighten its threshold or the reward will not be made available. This principal is identical to that of a wild dog attempting to elicit play with a superior of the pack, it must observe all the correct social forms so as not to infer a challenge to the superior and evoke a corrective response from him.
This also highlights why punishment of a forceful nature is ineffective in dealing with many canine behavioural problems. The dog in social mode is under our effective control, or at least is in the correct mode for us to obtain effective control. If we generate fear in the dog, subject to the dog’s threshold at that point, we risk a defence reaction. If the dog is in prey or social modes and it has a low threshold for defence any incidence of fear being felt by the dog can result in a defence, read aggressive, response. We as handlers have caused this situation; it is not necessarily the fault of the dog. We have been unable to effectively communicate our desires to the dog in a non-threatening manner. If trainers persistently facing this problem were to use the prey mode as a reward for concentration of the dog in the social mode, the withholding of such a reward is more than enough punishment and more importantly is effectively communicated to the dog.
In extreme circumstance, the ultimate punishment is to banish the dog from the packs security. No dog is truly comfortable when it is in complete isolation from its peers, be they human or dog. This measure conveys unambiguously to the dog that its behaviour will not be tolerated and if it continues its presence is not wanted. The dog’s innate need for security is how we should control our dog, using the social mode reinforced by the medium of prey play as a reward for correct behaviour. This is easily understood by the dog and limits the chances of defence modal reactions. This approach directly mimics the approach used by our dog’s wild ancestors and a result it is readily understood.
It should also thus be apparent that any move towards correction can only be achieved successfully after the dog has switched to social mode. This is vitally important when the dog is in defence mode, as punishment applied to a dog, which remains in this mode, will most likely lead to greater aggression being shown. If the dog submits it has not necessarily moved back to social mode, it may simply choose to avoid the confrontation by acting submissive and yet remain firmly in defence mode. The dogâ€™s action immediately after will largely demonstrate which mode it is in and if the punishment has been understood and accepted. An example is that a wolf may submit to a bear to avoid a confrontation, this does not imply to the wolf that the bear is its superior, rather it is simply bigger and stronger. Handlers using force to obtain results from their dogs are simple creating the same scenario; the dog avoids a confrontation by acting submissive it has not acknowledged the handler’s superiority. Dogs in prey/defence modes when corrected need to understand that it is an issue effecting their security within the pack, if they fail to understand this and feel fear they can also move to/remain in defence mode and aggression can result. If a dog is consistently failing to obey the commands of the handler, it is directly attributable to how the dog views the handler in relation to its social position. Force will not necessarily improve the handlerâ€™s position but a demonstration of the power the handler has to control the dog, such as banishment, will. Remember that in a wild pack if the pack leader only had physical force or aggression as its means of controlling subordinates the whole pack would as a result of the fighting be unfit to hunt, end result death to the pack. Posturing and withholding of clearly understood rewards are how control is achieved. We as trainers need to mimic this not compete against it.
SummaryModal theory allows dog trainers to use the emotional reactivity of the dog to effectively educate the dog in a manner that is clearly understood. The succinct way in which information is presented to the dog and the handlers ability to manipulate the dogs emotional reactivity to insure that the dog is in the best state of mind emotionally to receive and process this information increases the likelihood of the dog being effectively taught. This theory also insures that the rewards system required for operant conditioning to be effective is also clear and uncomplicated. This too in an operant conditioning framework increases the likelihood of desired behaviours becoming permanent.