ArticlePDF Available

Improving dog training methods: Efficacy and efficiency of reward and mixed training methods

PLOS
PLOS One
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Dogs play an important role in our society as companions and work partners, and proper training of these dogs is pivotal. For companion dogs, training helps preventing or managing dog behavioral problems—the most frequently cited reason for relinquishing and euthanasia, and it promotes successful dog-human relationships and thus maximizes benefits humans derive from bonding with dogs. For working dogs, training is crucial for them to successfully accomplish their jobs. Dog training methods range widely from those using predominantly aversive stimuli (aversive methods), to those combining aversive and rewarding stimuli (mixed methods) and those focusing on the use of rewards (reward methods). The use of aversive stimuli in training is highly controversial and several veterinary and animal protection organizations have recommended a ban on pinch collars, e-collars and other techniques that induce fear or pain in dogs, on the grounds that such methods compromise dog welfare. At the same time, training methods based on the use of rewards are claimed to be more humane and equally or more effective than aversive or mixed methods. This important discussion, however, has not always been based in solid scientific evidence. Although there is growing scientific evidence that training with aversive stimuli has a negative impact on dog welfare, the scientific literature on the efficacy and efficiency of the different methodologies is scarce and inconsistent. Hence, the goal of the current study is to investigate the efficacy and efficiency of different dog training methods. To that end, we will apply different dog training methods in a population of working dogs and evaluate the outcome after a period of training. The use of working dogs will allow for a rigorous experimental design and control, with randomization of treatments. Military (n = 10) and police (n = 20) dogs will be pseudo-randomly allocated to two groups. One group will be trained to perform a set of tasks (food refusal, interrupted recall, dumbbell retrieval and placing items in a basket) using reward methods and the other group will be trained for the same tasks using mixed methods. Later, the dogs will perform a standardized test where they will be required to perform the trained behaviors. The reliability of the behaviors and the time taken to learn them will be assessed in order to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency, respectively, of the different training methods. This study will be performed in collaboration with the Portuguese Army and with the Portuguese Public Security Police (PSP) and integrated with their dog training programs.
Content may be subject to copyright.
REGISTERED REPORT PROTOCOL
Improving dog training methods: Efficacy and
efficiency of reward and mixed training
methods
Ana Catarina Vieira de CastroID
1,2
*, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo
3
, Andre
´Fonseca
4
, I. Anna S. Olsson
1,2
1Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal, 2i3S –Instituto de
Investigac¸ão e Inovac¸ão em Sau
´de, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal, 3Polı
´cia de Seguranc¸a Pu
´blica,
Lisbon, Portugal, 4CINAMIL, The Military Academy Research Center of the Portuguese Army, Lisbon,
Portugal
*ana.castro@ibmc.up.pt
Abstract
Dogs play an important role in our society as companions and work partners, and proper
training of these dogs is pivotal. For companion dogs, training helps preventing or managing
dog behavioral problems—the most frequently cited reason for relinquishing and euthana-
sia, and it promotes successful dog-human relationships and thus maximizes benefits
humans derive from bonding with dogs. For working dogs, training is crucial for them to suc-
cessfully accomplish their jobs. Dog training methods range widely from those using pre-
dominantly aversive stimuli (aversive methods), to those combining aversive and rewarding
stimuli (mixed methods) and those focusing on the use of rewards (reward methods). The
use of aversive stimuli in training is highly controversial and several veterinary and animal
protection organizations have recommended a ban on pinch collars, e-collars and other
techniques that induce fear or pain in dogs, on the grounds that such methods compromise
dog welfare. At the same time, training methods based on the use of rewards are claimed to
be more humane and equally or more effective than aversive or mixed methods. This impor-
tant discussion, however, has not always been based in solid scientific evidence. Although
there is growing scientific evidence that training with aversive stimuli has a negative impact
on dog welfare, the scientific literature on the efficacy and efficiency of the different method-
ologies is scarce and inconsistent. Hence, the goal of the current study is to investigate the
efficacy and efficiency of different dog training methods. To that end, we will apply different
dog training methods in a population of working dogs and evaluate the outcome after a
period of training. The use of working dogs will allow for a rigorous experimental design and
control, with randomization of treatments. Military (n = 10) and police (n = 20) dogs will be
pseudo-randomly allocated to two groups. One group will be trained to perform a set of
tasks (food refusal, interrupted recall, dumbbell retrieval and placing items in a basket)
using reward methods and the other group will be trained for the same tasks using mixed
methods. Later, the dogs will perform a standardized test where they will be required to per-
form the trained behaviors. The reliability of the behaviors and the time taken to learn them
will be assessed in order to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency, respectively, of the different
training methods. This study will be performed in collaboration with the Portuguese Army
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 1 / 9
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
This is a Registered Report and may have
an associated publication; please check the
article page on the journal site for any
related articles.
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Vieira de Castro AC, Arau
´jo A
ˆ, Fonseca A,
Olsson IAS (2021) Improving dog training
methods: Efficacy and efficiency of reward and
mixed training methods. PLoS ONE 16(2):
e0247321. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0247321
Editor: Simon Clegg, University of Lincoln, UNITED
KINGDOM
Received: July 31, 2020
Accepted: February 4, 2021
Published: February 19, 2021
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321
Copyright: ©2021 de Castro et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
and with the Portuguese Public Security Police (PSP) and integrated with their dog training
programs.
1. Introduction
The methods used to train dogs range broadly with some using rewards and other non-inva-
sive techniques (reward methods), others using mainly aversive stimuli (aversive methods)
and still others using a combination of both (mixed methods). Strong claims have been made
for the negative effect of the use of aversive stimuli in training on dog welfare and dog-owner
bond. However, the scientific evidence for this has been limited as most studies lack objective
welfare measures, investigation of the entire range of aversive techniques and companion dog-
focused research [1]. Recently, in the first large-scale quasi-experimental study of companion
dog training (n = 92), Vieira de Castro et al (2020) [2] found that dogs trained with aversive sti-
muli displayed more stress behaviors during training, showed higher elevations in cortisol lev-
els after training and, if trained exclusively with aversive methods, were more ‘pessimistic’ in a
cognitive bias task than dogs trained with either reward and mixed methods. These findings
strongly suggest that using aversive stimuli in training compromises companion dog welfare
both within and outside the training context. In parallel, in a study aimed at assessing the rela-
tionship between training methods and dog-owner bond, Vieira de Castro el al (2019) [3]
found that a secure attachment tended to be more consistent in dogs trained with reward
methods, as revealed by behaviors displayed during a Strange Situation Procedure. These
results suggest that the choice of training methods may also affect dog attachment to owner.
In addition to the effects on welfare, efficacy and efficiency are also relevant aspects to con-
sider for the choice of training methods. Although claims have been made that reward and
aversive/mixed methods are, at least, equally effective, the existing scientific literature is incon-
sistent. Some studies examined the efficacy (reliability of trained behaviors) of specific training
methods but without directly comparing reward and aversive/mixed methods. Dale et al
(2017) [4] found that dogs learned to avoid native birds after training using e-collars, an aver-
sive technique, and that learning was retained for most dogs following one year. On the other
hand, Yin et al (2008) [5] demonstrated that dogs could be trained with a remote-controlled
food reward dispenser not to bark excessively, jump and crowd around the door when people
arrived. Also, three proof-of-concept studies have shown that clicker training (a reward tech-
nique) is effective for training dogs for scent detection tasks [6,7] and service dog tasks [8].
Other studies have directly compared the efficacy of aversive and reward methods in both
dogs and horses and these have produced conflicting results. Among these, five studies suggest
a higher efficacy of reward methods [913], whereas one points in the opposite direction [14]
and three show no differences between methods [1517]. To our knowledge, only one study
addressed the efficiency (speed of learning) of different methods and suggests a higher effi-
ciency of reward over aversive methods [18].
Therefore, the aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of different
dog training methods. This will be investigated in the context of working dogs, as working
dogs allow a rigorous experimental design and control, with randomization of treatments.
Namely, military and police dogs will be trained using either reward (Group Reward) or
mixed methods (Group Mixed, dogs pseudo-randomly allocated to groups) to perform a set of
behaviors. The efficiency of training methods will be evaluated by measuring the number of
sessions required for the dogs to learn the tasks, and efficacy will be assessed using a standard-
ized test in which dogs will be required to perform the trained behaviors.
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 2 / 9
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data from
this study will be made available upon study
completion.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Dogs play an important role in our society both as companion and working animals. Own-
ing a dog for companionship has been shown to bring several physical and psychological bene-
fits to humans [19,20], and working dogs are of invaluable help when, for example, they fulfil
tasks for disabled people or help in the detection of drugs or explosives. Dog training plays a
pivotal role here. First, by preventing or managing dog behavioral problems—the most fre-
quently cited reason for relinquishing and euthanasia [21], it helps to promote successful dog-
human relationships and thus maximize the benefits humans derive from bonding with dogs
[22]. Secondly, because it is required for working dogs to successfully accomplish their jobs.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Ethics statement
The planned study includes an experimental training protocol in which working dogs are
trained with either reward or mixed methods. The mixed methods will be based on the train-
ing method presently used for training these dogs outside the experimental protocol, thus no
dog will be subjected to pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm as a result of being recruited
for the study. Shock collars and pinch collars, which can cause physical harm, will not be used.
Dogs and handlers will be video recorded for further analysis of behavior. Individual han-
dlers will be identifiable from the video footage. Material in which individuals can be identified
will only be used by the research team for research purposes (i.e., to control for the training
techniques and for data analysis).
All handlers will be briefed that the purpose of the study is “to investigate different training
methods and measure the behavior of the dog-handler dyad”, and sign an informed consent
form that they agree to participate in the study and to be video recorded for research purposes.
Each handler will be instructed about which tools and techniques are included in the treatment
assigned to them, but will not be informed about the overall experimental design.
Applications for approval are submitted to the Committee for Ethics and Responsible Con-
duct in Research (human subjects research) and from the Animal Welfare and Ethics Body
(animal research) of i3S, University of Porto. The study will only start after approval has been
obtained.
2.2. Subjects
Military (n = 10) and police dogs (n = 20), housed at the facilities of the Military Working Dog
Platoon in the Portuguese Paratroopers Regiment (RPara) and Portuguese Public Security
Police (PSP) K9 unit, respectively will be allocated to Group Reward (trained with reward
methods) and Group Mixed (trained with mixed methods). All dogs have previous mixed
methods training experience, a stratified randomization method [23] will be used to assign
animals to the two groups. This method allows for balancing in terms of subjects’ baseline
characteristics (covariates) that may potentially affect the dependent variables under study. In
the present study the following covariates will be taken into account: dog sex, age, breed and
previous training experience (obedience, odor detection, protection work). This will be done
for each institution, meaning that five dogs from RPara and 10 dogs from the PSP K9 unit will
be allocated to each group.
As part of their certification process as working dogs, all the animals had to perform and
pass the obedience component of a BH test [24]. Despite all dogs being naïve to the specific
exercises included in the present study (food refusal, interrupted recall, dumbbell retrieval and
placing items in basket–the detailed description of the exercises is presented below), two simi-
lar behaviors are trained as part of the training programs of PSP and RPara. Namely, dogs are
trained to retrieve a motivator (e.g., a tug or bite pad), although not to the formality and
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 3 / 9
precision that is going to be required in the ‘dumbbell retrieve’ exercise, and they are also usu-
ally trained to interrupt a send away (i.e., they are trained to run forward to a motivator and
interrupt the running when instructed). The ‘food refusal’ and ‘place items in the basket’ exer-
cises are not part of the training programs and are thus new or near to completely new for all
the animals. Because previous training on similar behaviors may have carryover effects on the
training planned for the study, at the time of the beginning of the study, each participating
dog’s training history will be thoroughly evaluated and, if needed, this will also be included as
a covariate in the randomization process.
2.3. Training methods
All dogs will be trained through associative learning (classical and operant conditioning) [25,
26], however, the principles used for each group will differ. Whereas all four quadrants of
operant conditioning will be allowed for Group Mixed (positive punishment, negative rein-
forcement, positive reinforcement and negative punishment), only the quadrants of positive
reinforcement and negative punishment will be permitted for Group Reward. Regarding clas-
sical conditioning, the use of both conditioned reinforcers and punishers will be allowed for
Group Mixed, but only conditioned reinforcers will be allowed for Group Reward. Table 1 dis-
plays the detailed definitions for all the conditioning procedures and includes some practical
examples.
As for training equipment, no pinch nor e-collars will be allowed in the study and choke
chains will only be allowed for Group Mixed. Apart from this, the handlers will be free to
decide which other equipment to use among leashes, flat collars and harnesses. The use of a
clicker will also be optional, as it has been reported not to affect efficiency and efficacy as com-
pared to the use of a verbal marker or food alone [2729]. In order to ensure that the instruc-
tions regarding the training procedures and tools permitted for each group are being followed,
checkpoints will be done at the fifth and tenth days of training for each dyad, when the
research team will review the video recordings of the training sessions.
Some flexibility for choosing training equipment and procedures will thus be allowed (as
opposed to have the handlers following previously defined and detailed training protocols).
The reason for this decision is that this study aims to reflect a real-life situation of dog training,
Table 1. Definition of the conditioning procedures used for training dogs.
Procedure Definition
Operant
conditioning
Positive
punishment
Any unpleasant stimulus that is applied to the dog after the exhibition of
an undesirable behavior. Examples include applying a leash jerk, yelling
at the dog and leaning towards the dog in a threatening way.
Negative
reinforcement
Any unpleasant stimulus that is applied to the dog and that is stopped
only after the dog exhibits the desired behavior. Examples include
releasing leash pressure.
Positive
reinforcement
Any pleasant stimulus that is applied to the dog after the exhibition of a
desirable behavior. Examples include food treats, playing tug-of-war,
verbal praise, and petting the dog.
Negative
punishment
Any pleasant stimulus that is removed after the exhibition of an
undesirable behavior. Examples include a time-out in a crate.
Classical
conditioning
Conditioned
punisher
Any (initially) neutral stimulus that, after repeated paring with an
unpleasant stimulus, acquires its properties as a punisher. Examples
includes a verbal marker ‘no’ that was paired with a slap.
Conditioned
reinforcer
Any (initially) neutral stimulus that, after repeated paring with a
pleasant stimulus acquires its properties as a reinforcer. Examples
includes a clicker (a device that makes a clicking sound) that was paired
with food delivery.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321.t001
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 4 / 9
where different handlers use different approaches (within the same training method–reward
or mixed) and, especially, where the individual dog and its natural tendencies and behaviors
usually dictate the training pathway.
2.4. Data collection
2.4.1. Training. Dogs will be trained by their handlers to perform four exercises: ‘food
refusal, ‘interrupted recall’, ‘dumbbell retrieval’ and ‘placing items in basket’. The exercises were
chosen in order to resemble real working dog tasks, while not interfering with the dogs’ daily
working duties. Prior to training commencement, the handlers will be instructed on the exer-
cises that they will train the dogs to perform and on the tools and techniques they are allowed to
use during training (as explained in detail in the previous section). The handlers will be free to
decide whether to train the exercises in parallel or in a sequence, as well as the order in which to
train the different exercises. Training sessions will be conducted two days per week, with a gap
between training days no longer than three days. Each training session will have a maximum
duration of 10 minutes and up to six training sessions can be conducted per day. Within each
training day, a break of at least 30 minutes between training sessions will be required.
Training for each exercise will end when the dog reaches the learning criterion (i.e., ade-
quately performs the behavior as determined by the handler) or after a maximum of 45 ses-
sions. Information regarding the number of training sessions, their duration and the behaviors
being trained will be annotated by each handler in a notebook (specifically designed for the
study) for each training day. In addition, all training sessions will be video recorded.
2.4.2. Evaluating performance. The efficiency of the different training methods will be
evaluated through the number of training sessions necessary to reach the learning criterion (as
determined by the handlers), and the efficacy will be assessed through a standardized test
where the dogs will be asked to perform the trained behaviors. The test will be conducted in a
fenced enclosure and will include the following exercises:
1. Food refusal: The handler asks the dog to ‘stay’ (the position in which the dog is left can
be either a sit, a down or a stand, according to the handler’s choice), walks 10 meters away to a
pre-defined/marked location within the field of vision of the dog, and stops with his/her back
facing the dog. Afterwards, a helper comes near the dog and throws two pieces of food next to
the dog’s front legs, one to right side and one to the left side. The handler can use the verbal
cue for the dog not to eat before starting the exercise or while the helper is coming within the
field.
Cues: ‘Sit’/’Down’/‘Stand’, ‘Stay’, ‘Don’t eat’
2. Interrupted recall: The handler asks the dog to ‘stay’ (the position in which the dog is left
can be either a sit, a down or a stand, according to the handler’s choice), walks 30 meters away
to a pre-defined/marked location, turns to face the dog and recalls the dog, instructing it to
stop after roughly half the distance is covered (the position is which the dog stops can be either
a sit, a down or a stand, according to the handler’s choice).
Cues: ‘Sit’/’Down’/‘Stand’, ‘Stay’, ‘Come’, ‘Stop’
3. Dumbbell retrieval: With the dog sitting at his/her side, the handler throws the dumbbell
to a distance of roughly 10 meters (marked in the floor in order to help) and then instructs the
dog to retrieve it. The dog should move towards the dumbbell, pick it up and bring it to the
handler, sit in front of him and only release on cue.
Cues: ‘Sit’, ‘Get it’, ‘Out’
4. Placing items in basket: A basket will be placed in the field and three items will be placed
in pre-defined positions in the floor, around the basket, by a helper. The handler will then
instruct the dog to place the items in the basket.
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 5 / 9
Cues: ‘Place’ (only one cue is allowed for the entire exercise, the handler is not allowed to
give additional cues after each item is retrieved)
5. Surprise exercise: The dog will have to perform a dumbbell retrieval with two pieces of
food being thrown to the floor next to the dog by a helper before the exercise starts. This exer-
cise will be included in order to test for training generalization.
Cues: ‘Sit’, ‘Don’t eat’, ‘Get it’, ‘Out’
The starting points for the exercises will be the same for all dogs and will be marked in the
floor with a spray. Only verbal cues will be allowed during the test. The aforementioned
words/expressions are, however, purely indicative—each handler will be free to choose his or
her own cues. During the test, the dogs will not wear any collar or leash and no treats, toys or
punishments will be allowed. Handlers will only be allowed to use social reinforcement
(praise) between exercises. Additionally, in order to ensure that all dogs perform the test with
similar motivation levels, dogs will be fed 12 hours previously to the conduction of the tests
and no play or physical exercise will be allowed during this period.
The designs of Exercises 1, 2 and 3 were inspired on the Federation Cynologique Interna-
tional (FCI) dog sports of IGP, Obedience and Mondioring [24,30,31]. Exercise 4 is not part
of any recognized dog sport, but its core behavior is (retrieve).
The test will be performed twice, the day after the learning criterion is achieved for all
behaviors and 6 months later, to assess short- and long-term efficacy. No formal training will
be performed between the two evaluations for ‘Food refusal’ and ‘Placing items in basket’.
‘Interrupted Recall’ and ‘Retrieve dumbbell’ will be trained once a month for maintenance.
This will be done in order to evaluate the impact of maintenance training on long-term effi-
cacy. The tests will be recorded using two video cameras, set in order to cover the entire field.
A pilot study using two dog-handler dyads that will not participate in the main study will be
performed in order to test and, if needed, refine the methodology.
2.5. Data analysis
Two different approaches will be used to analyze the performance of the dogs in the test. Three
international experts on working dog training will be invited to assess dog performance in situ
on the test days. The experts, who will be blind to the experimental groups and to the goals of
the study, will be instructed to use a qualitative scoring system, according to which the dog
performance for each exercise should be classified as ‘insufficient’, ‘sufficient’ or ‘outstanding’
(see S1 Annex for full details). Moreover, two researchers blind to the experimental groups
and to the goals of the study will analyze the videos of the tests using a quantitative scoring sys-
tem, following which the dog performance for each exercise will receive a score ranging from 0
to 10 (see S2 Annex for full details). Inter-observer reliability will be calculated for each exer-
cise. The quantitative scoring system was developed based on FCI rules and guidelines for
Obedience, Mondioring and IGP trials [24,30,31].
The video recordings of the training sessions and the tests will also be used to assess dog
welfare through the analysis of stress behaviors as in Vieira de Castro et al (2020). These will
also allow for the analysis of handler behavior and other aspects of training such as the fre-
quency, type and timing of the stimuli applied. This will be used to generate a list of all the con-
ditioning procedures actually used by each handler during training.
2.5.1. Statistical analysis. Data will be analyzed using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model
(GLMM), to account for repeated measures and to investigate the effects of multiple subject
variables. Subject ID will be included as the repeated measure. Age (years), sex (M/F), breed
and training experience will be included as covariates and Training Method (Mixed vs
Reward) and Training Unit (PSP, RPara) as factors. One model will be run for each response
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 6 / 9
variable: 1) number of training sessions necessary to reach the learning criterion, 2) qualitative
score obtained in the test and 3) quantitative score obtained in the test.
Supporting information
S1 Annex. Qualitative scoring system for the test for efficacy evaluation.
(DOCX)
S2 Annex. Quantitative scoring system for the test for efficacy evaluation.
(DOCX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I. Anna S.
Olsson.
Data curation: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, I. Anna S. Olsson.
Funding acquisition: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I. Anna
S. Olsson.
Investigation: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I. Anna S.
Olsson.
Methodology: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I. Anna S.
Olsson.
Project administration: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I.
Anna S. Olsson.
Resources: A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, Andre
´Fonseca, I. Anna S. Olsson.
Supervision: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, I. Anna S. Olsson.
Validation: I. Anna S. Olsson.
Visualization: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro.
Writing original draft: Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro.
Writing review & editing: A
ˆngelo Arau
´jo, I. Anna S. Olsson.
References
1. Guilherme-Fernandes J, Olsson IAS, Vieira de Castro AC. Do aversive-based training methods actually
compromise dog welfare?: A literature review. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2017; 196, 1–12. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.applanim.2017.07.001
2. Vieira de Castro AC, Fuchs D, Pastur S, Munhoz-Morello G, de Sousa L, Olsson IAS. Does training
method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog wel-
fare. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15(12): e0225023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023 PMID:
33326450
3. Vieira de Castro AC, Barrett J, de Sousa L, Olsson IAS Carrots versus sticks: The relationship between
training methods and dog-owner bond. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2019; 219: 104831. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.applanim.2019.104831
4. Dale AR, Podlesnik CA, Elliffe D. Evaluation of an aversion-based program designed to reduce preda-
tion of native birds by dogs: An analysis of training records for 1156 dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2017;
191: 59–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2017.03.003
5. Yin S, Fernandez EJ, Pagan S, Richardson SL, Snyder G. Efficacy of a remote-controlled, positive-rein-
forcement, dog-training system for modifying problem behaviors exhibited when people arrive at the
door. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 113: 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.001
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 7 / 9
6. Willis CM, Church SM, Guest CM, Cook WA, McCarthy N, Bransbury AJ, et al. Olfactory detection of
human bladder cancer by dogs: proof of principle study. BMJ: Brit Med J. 2004; 329 (7468): 712.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7468.712 PMID: 15388612
7. Cornu J, Cancel-Tassin G, Ondet V, Girarde C, Cussenot O. Olfactory detection of prostate cancer by
dogs sniffing urine: a step forward in early diagnosis. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(2), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eururo.2010.10.006 PMID: 20970246
8. D’Onofrio J. Measuring the efficiency of clicker training for service dogs. Thesis in Special Education,
The Pennsylvania State University. 2015.
9. Blackwell EJ, Bolster C, Richards G, Loftus BA, Casey RA. The use of electronic collars for training
domestic dogs: estimated prevalence, reasons and risk factors for use, and owner perceived success
as compared to other training methods. BMC Vet Res. 2012; 8, 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-
8-93 PMID: 22748195
10. China L, Mills DS, Cooper JJ. Efficacy of Dog Training With and Without Remote Electronic Collars vs.
a Focus on Positive Reinforcement. Front Vet Sci. 2020; 7:508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.
00508 PMID: 32793652
11. Haverbeke A, Laporte B, Depiereux E, Giffroy JM, Diederich C. Training methods of military dog han-
dlers and their effects on the team’s performances. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 113, 110–122. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.010
12. Haverbeke A, Messaoudi F, Depiereux E, Stevens M, Giffroy JM, Diederich C. Efficiency of working
dogs undergoing a new Human Familiarization and Training Program. J Vet Behav. 2010; 5: 112–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.08.008
13. Hiby EF, Rooney NJ, Bradshaw JWS. Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction
with behaviour and welfare. Anim Welf. 2004; 13, 63–69.
14. Salgirli Y, Schalke E, Hackbarth H. Comparison of learning effects and stress between 3 different train-
ing methods (electronic training collar, pinch collar and quitting signal) in Belgian Malinois Police Dogs.
Rev Me
´d Ve
´t. 2012; 163, 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2009.05.014
15. Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills D. The welfare consequences and efficacy of train-
ing pet dogs with remote electronic training collars in comparison to reward based training. PLoS One.
2014; 9, e102722. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102722 PMID: 25184218
16. Sankey C, Richard-Yris M., Henry S, Fureix C, Nassur F, Hausberger M. Reinforcement as a mediator
of the perception of humans by horses (Equus caballus). Anim Cogni, 2010; 13: 753–764. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10071-010-0326-9 PMID: 20490592
17. Visser EK, Van Dierendonck M, Ellis AD, Rijksen C, Van Reenen. A comparison of sympathetic and
conventional training methods on responses to initial horse training. Vet J. 2009; 181: 48–52. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.009 PMID: 19375363
18. Hendriken P, Elmgreen K, Ladewig J. Trailer-loading of horses: Is there a difference between positive
and negative reinforcement concerning effectiveness and stress-related signs? J Vet Behav. 2011; 6,
261–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2011.02.007
19. Barker SB, Wolen AR. The benefits of human-companion animal interaction: a review. J Vet Med Educ.
2008; 35(4), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.35.4.487 PMID: 19228898
20. Crawford EK, Worsham NL, Swinehart ER. Benefits derived from companion animals, and the use of
the term “attachment”. Anthrozoos. 2006; 19 (2), 98–112. https://doi.org/10.2752/
089279306785593757
21. Reisner I. The learning dog: A discussion of training methods. In: Serpell J, editor. The Domestic Dog:
Its Evolution, Behavior and Interactions with People, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press;
2017. pp. 211–226.
22. Payne E, Bennett PC, McGreevy PD. Current perspectives on attachment and bonding in the dog–
human dyad. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2015; 8: 71–79. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S74972
PMID: 25750549
23. Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical
research. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011; 4(1):8–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82352 PMID:
21772732
24. Mazur J. Learning and Behavior, 6th Edition. Pearson/Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J; 2006.
25. Pryor K. Don’t shoot the dog!: the new art of teaching and training. New York, Bantam Books; 1999.
26. International Utility Dogs Regulations of the Federation Cynologique International (FCI). file://fs04.i3s.
up.pt/Users$/ana.castro/Downloads/UTI-REG-IGP-en%20(3).pdf (Accessed 30/10/2020)
27. Dorey NR, Blandina A, Udell MAR. Clicker training does not enhance learning in mixed-breed shelter
puppies (Canis familiaris). J Vet Behav. 2020; 39: 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2020.07.005
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 8 / 9
28. Chiandetti C, Avella S, Fongaro E, Cerri F. Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs? Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016; 184, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.006
29. Williams JL, Friend TH, Nevill CH, Archer G. The efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during
acquisition and extinction of an operant task in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004; 88, 331–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.008
30. Federation Cynologique International (FCI) Rules and Guidelines for Obedience Trials. http://www.fci.
be/en/Obedience-46.html (Accessed 16/04/2020)
31. Federation Cynologique International (FCI) International Rules of Mondioring Competition. http://fci.be/
en/Mondioring-3500.html (Accessed 30/10/2020)
PLOS ONE
Efficacy and efficiency of dog training methods
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247321 February 19, 2021 9 / 9
... Dogs can play important roles in humans' lives, not only as working animals but also as social partners [1,2]. Dog ownership can lead to numerous psychological and physical benefits for the owners [3]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Selecting a dog that is incompatible with the owner’s expectations can negatively impact both parties. Previous studies on dog acquisition have primarily focused on shelter environments, using closed-ended questions to assess hypothetical preferences. In contrast, our study employed open-ended questions with a convenience sample of Austrian dog owners (N = 1077) to retrospectively explore why the owners chose their dogs. We also examined consistency in owners’ responses and the influence of owner characteristics (age, education, household composition, previous dog experience, purpose of acquisition) on their reasons. Content analysis revealed 24 codes; the frequency of codes was 2.4/response. The most frequent codes were breed-based choice (29%), choosing on a whim, without careful consideration (24%), work/sport skills (22%), and rescuing a dog (17%). The least frequent were the age (1%), health (1%), sex (1%), and guarding skills (0.6%) of the dog. Twelve codes were consistent over time, and ten were consistent across dogs, indicating that the owners showed a consistent preference for certain traits. Except for the owner’s education level, all characteristics affected the likelihood of mentioning at least one code. Most associations were found with the presence of children in the household: owners with children preferred friendly, easily manageable, and easy-to-train dogs and were less likely to adopt or rescue compared to owners living without children. Our findings also highlight discrepancies between spontaneous (free-text) reports and responses to closed-ended questions, underscoring the importance of qualitative data in better understanding the motivations behind and the factors influencing dog acquisition.
... The reference to "positive reinforcement" in the above section brings us to several articles from our selection here that we consider to be especially relevant and thought provoking in terms of the relationship between dog welfare and training. In a published research proposal focused on the training of working dogs, Vieira de Castro et al. [57] present an overview of traditional dog training methods based on the behaviorist principles of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning methods include a conditioned punisher such as when an initially neutral stimulus (e.g., the word 'No!') is paired with a punishing stimulus, e.g., a slap. ...
Article
Full-text available
The close bond that can exist between humans and their dogs is an important aspect of the evolutionary, economic, and social connections between the two species. There is a need for a better understanding of the place of the dog within the human–dog bond and on ways the human–dog bond affects dog welfare. We conducted a scoping review to investigate to what extent and in what ways dog welfare is addressed in the research literature on the human–dog bond. We identified 706 publications on the human–dog bond from across the globe that were published from 2012 to 2023. We found that 246 of these 706 publications had a focus on dog welfare. Our review showed that the interplay of characteristics and backgrounds of owners/handlers and their dogs was linked to dog welfare in multiple, both positive and negative, ways. Our review is limited by the fact that most of the research that we reviewed involved pet dogs and in majority came from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) societies. There is a need for a better understanding of how the human–dog bond affects the welfare of working, assistance, and service dogs.
... There is currently no standardized method for identifying and assessing the trainability of dogs, so researchers have used different approaches and methodologies [13]. Evaluating canine trainability requires a comprehensive approach that considers various factors and uses multiple assessment methods [5]. Emotion induction trials can be used to assess the training ability of dogs. ...
Conference Paper
Canine trainability is an important characteristic for working and companion dogs, but assessing it accurately is a challenging task. In this study, we propose a novel approach to evaluate canine trainability by measuring their heart rate responses during behavioral trials. We conducted behavioral tests on a group of 10 dogs of the Siberian Husky breed and recorded their heart rates using a wearable sensor Polar OH1. The behavioral trials consisted of eight tests that induced different emotional reactions. We analyzed the heart rate data using statistical and machine learning techniques to identify patterns and correlations with the dogs’ performance in the trials. Our results indicate that heart rate responses during behavioral trials are significantly correlated with the dogs’ trainability, as measured by the high correlation (0.77 Pearson’s correlation index) and the small error (1.54 MAE on a rating scale from 1 to 10) showed by the trained regression model. We conclude that heart rate variability is a useful feature for distinguishing between highly trainable and less trainable dogs. Our approach provides a reliable and non-invasive method for assessing canine trainability, which could be useful for breeders, trainers, and owners in selecting and training dogs.
... However, it is worth noting that Haraway is a dog trainer who participated with her canine partners in dog agility competitions (Haraway, 2003). And while Haraway's approach might be more enlightened than traditional dog training methods such as adverse stimuli or negative reinforcement (de Castro et al., 2021), they are none-the-less driven by a human desire for the dog to cooperate in a certain way. In other-than-human animal training there is invariably a power imbalance with the human trainer assuming the superior role. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
This thesis employs thematic discourse analysis to elucidate prominent themes and points of contention associated with roaming cats (Felis catus). The data comprised 2476 online user comments responding to content related to roaming cats, 75 qualitative survey responses, 771 Facebook responses, and biographies reconstructed from eight case studies of cat-human relationships. These reflect broader social discourses surrounding more-than-human animals and human governance over other animals. Notions of guardian (owner) responsibilities are underpinned by different perceptions of companion cats (pets), ranging from childlike dependents who need to be protected and ‘parented’ to wild-like animals whose confinement would be morally wrong. Comments reveal how discourses from scientists, cat and wildlife advocacy groups, and the media are filtered through a local lens and often applied out of context. The data supports the notion that media reporting is instigating a moral panic over roaming cats by evoking emotive responses to predation by cats. These invariably become entangled within discourses related to cat safety, welfare, and complaints of ‘nuisance’ behaviours. Discourses surrounding cats in the community are further examined within a morethan- human biopolitical framework that describes how cohesive social mechanisms exert control over feline bodies through normalisation of practices such as desexing and confinement. Language was found to play a key role in biopolitical control by dominating the narrative of ‘responsible’ cat guardianship. Language is also central to moral panic theory, and the term ‘feral’ was shown to reinforce a ‘folk devil’ trope of free-living cats as transgressive and inherently different from companion cats. ‘Feral’ also invoked pity among those adamant cats need human love and care. However, cats are not without agency and can co-create meaning within a multispecies home or community. Case studies demonstrated cat-human intersubjectivity (joint meaning-making) and the various relationships formed between cats and non-feline animals (including human), both inside and outside of their homes.
... Sport training can be analyzed from a multidimensional perspective as the specialized pedagogical, instructional, and educative processes, which involve a systematic longitudinal phasing of the contents that are meant to capitalize on identifying potential, specialized knowledge, technical skills, and abilities of athletes for the purpose of obtaining valuable results in sports competitions [7], [13]. The constitutive components of sports training are adapted to the particularities of the basketball game and refer to various aspects, spanning from specificity and personalised training, to aspects such as prevention and recovery after effort, as well as to those regarding physical overload and overtraining [14], [17]. The performance level of players practicing team sports is influenced and determined by the weight and quality of technical and tactical training along with physical, psychological, and theoretical training for all categories of children and juniors. ...
Article
Full-text available
The objective of the research centered on how the pulse oximeter was used to identify heart rate dynamics when performing free throws under standardised conditions in the male and female experimental groups (U14-U18). The study was conducted in 2021, and the functional test consisted of monitoring the heart rate with the help of the pulse oximeter during the execution of the ‚’10 Experimental Throws Test’ used to identify how the heart rate varies during the execution of free throws. In the case of the functional test, heart rate differences monitored with the pulse oximeter, recorded between the initial and final testing of the study, were statistically significant for all female and male experimental groups, showcasing the ability of the subjects to adapt and recover from the effort, which can have positive effects on their ability to concentrate and enhance their accuracy when executing free throws in basketball.
Article
The level of stress in Law Enforcement Dogs during work has already been the subject of several publications. The purpose of this study was to determine if and how the signs of stress occurred during the period of inactivity, i.e., during periods without work and after retirement. Several interesting aspects emerged from the questionnaires submitted to the conductors of the Dog Units, including the presence of slight /modest entity behavioural abnormalities and the underestimation of an adequate relationship of collaboration between some of the institutions interviewed and the professional figure of the veterinary surgeon expert in behavioural medicine.
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines unstructured interview transcripts from case-studies of cat-human relationships, using the framework of interspecies intersubjectivity. Adopting a qualitative thematic approach, this study explores how interspecies relationships are formed and performed within the context of multispecies families and communities. Themes emerged relating to how the cats in this study became integrated into multispecies families and communities, through mutual trust-building, interspecies communication, and joint meaning-making. Examples of co-creation of meaning within the cat-human relationships included special vocalizations or signals with shared meaning that were co-developed over time. All the cats exerted their agency in some manner that influenced human behaviour. Most notably, by convincing their guardian to let them out to roam and to trust them. Although undoubtably influenced by their kittenhood experiences, individual personalities rendered some cats inherently more eager to roam and others more content to stay home. This study highlights several friendships formed between cats and nonguardian humans and provides insight into how cats integrate themselves into their communities. Furthermore, it demonstrates how cats are proactive in the process of becoming members of multispecies families.
Preprint
Full-text available
Since many dog adoptions end with the dog being abandoned due to unmet expectations, it is important to know how certain demographic variables and previous experiences of the owners relate to the characteristics of the dog they are looking for. We asked Austrian dog owners about why they chose their dog in an online questionnaire. Based on their free-text responses, we examined how family structure, the role of the dog, and the owners' previous experience with dogs influenced what characteristics they indicated. Owners who had lived with other people/another dog when choosing a new animal were more thoughtful and often took on the animal with a predetermined purpose. People who lived alone/had no children/were previously dogless were more likely to take on an animal spontaneously on a whim, either because they felt sorry for it or because they fell in love with it. Appearance factors were more critical for first-time dog owners, while experienced owners were more likely to mention their intention to work or play sports with the animal in the future. The results point to factors which influence whether choosing a dog is done with proper reflection versus impulsively. This may carry important implications for animal welfare.
Thesis
Full-text available
The study aimed to compare the efficacy of three different event markers (clicker, mouth click and recorded verbal marker) and a primary reinforcer (food) in shaping behaviours in dogs. Food-only trials were used as a control. n=36 companion dogs were evaluated in two shaping tests using a bucket and a mat. Each combination of marker and reinforcement or reinforcement only was tested three times in total. The dogs were presented with 18 trials with the mat first and 18 with the bucket first. The number of repetitions of behaviours and the number of unique behaviours were recorded for each dog. A one-way Anova test revealed no significant difference in the number of behaviours offered between the 3 markers and the control. A Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant difference in the number of unique behaviours offered between the 3 markers and the control. A Mann-Whitney U Test revealed no significant difference in the number of behaviours or the number of unique behaviours offered between the clicker and the mouth click. There was no effect on the number of behaviours or the number of unique behaviours offered due to age, training, breed, sex or size.
Article
Full-text available
Veterinary professionals (VPs) are often the first source of advice for clients struggling with their dog's behaviour, and pulling on the lead is a commonplace undesirable behaviour VPs will encounter regularly in practice. Excluding bites, being pulled over while walking on a lead is the leading cause of non‐fatal dog‐related injuries in the UK. This narrative review investigates lead pulling as a welfare concern in pet dogs, highlighting aspects of the literature of particular interest to VPs. Lead pulling could negatively affect walk quality, frequency and duration, causing weight gain, while decreased environmental enrichment could trigger other undesirable behaviours. Aversive equipment to prevent lead pulling can cause pain, distress and injury, but even equipment considered humane can have welfare consequences. Punitive training methods could cause dogs stress, fear and anxiety and trigger aggressive behaviour. While these lead pulling outcomes are welfare concerns in themselves, they could also weaken dog–owner attachment, a risk factor in pet dog relinquishment. Given lead pulling could affect the welfare of patients in a VPs care, clinical implications and opportunities for client education are outlined. Educating clients on humane prevention and modification of lead pulling could make walks easier, safer and more enjoyable, with positive outcomes for clients, canine welfare and the practice.
Article
Full-text available
Dog training methods range broadly from those using mostly positive punishment and negative reinforcement (aversive-based) to those using primarily positive reinforcement (reward-based). Although aversive-based training has been strongly criticized for negatively affecting dog welfare, there is no comprehensive research focusing on companion dogs and mainstream techniques, and most studies rely on owner-reported assessment of training methods and dog behavior. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of aversive- and reward-based training methods on companion dog welfare within and outside the training context. Ninety-two companion dogs were recruited from three reward-based schools (Group Reward, n = 42), and from four aversive-based schools, two using low proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Mixed, n = 22) and two using high proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Aversive, n = 28). For evaluating welfare during training, dogs were video recorded for three sessions and six saliva samples were collected, three at home (baseline levels) and three after training (post-training levels). Video recordings were used to examine the frequency of stress-related behaviors (e.g., lip lick, yawn) and the overall behavioral state of the dog (e.g., tense, relaxed), and saliva samples were analyzed for cortisol concentration. For evaluating welfare outside the training context, dogs participated in a cognitive bias task. Results showed that dogs from Group Aversive displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense and low behavioral states and panted more during training, and exhibited higher post-training increases in cortisol levels than dogs from Group Reward. Additionally, dogs from Group Aversive were more ‘pessimistic’ in the cognitive bias task than dogs from Group Reward. Dogs from Group Mixed displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense states and panted more during training than dogs from Group Reward. Finally, although Groups Mixed and Aversive did not differ in their performance in the cognitive bias task nor in cortisol levels, the former displayed more stress-related behaviors and was more frequently in tense and low behavioral states. These findings indicate that aversive-based training methods, especially if used in high proportions, compromise the welfare of companion dogs both within and outside the training context.
Article
Full-text available
We assessed the efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars compared to training with positive reinforcement. A total of 63 dogs with known off-lead behavioral problems such as poor recall were allocated to one of three training groups (each n = 21), receiving up to 150 min of training over 5 days to improve recall and general obedience. The 3 groups were: E-collar—manufacturer-nominated trainers who used electronic stimuli as part of their training program; Control 1—the same trainers following practices they would apply when not using electronic stimuli; and Control 2—independent, professional trainers who focused primarily on positive reinforcement for their training. Data collection focused on dogs' response to two commands: “Come” (recall to trainer) and “Sit” (place hindquarters on ground). These were the two most common commands used during training, with improving recall being the target behavior for the subject dogs. Measures of training efficacy included number of commands given to elicit the response and response latency. Control 2 achieved significantly better responses to both “Sit” and “Come” commands after a single instruction in the allocated time. These dogs also had shorter response latencies than the E-collar group. There was no significant difference in the proportion of command disobeyed between the three groups, although significantly fewer commands were given to the dogs in Control 2. There was no difference in the number of verbal cues used in each group, but Control 2 used fewer hand and lead signals, and Control 1 made more use of these signals than E-collar group. These findings refute the suggestion that training with an E-collar is either more efficient or results in less disobedience, even in the hands of experienced trainers. In many ways, training with positive reinforcement was found to be more effective at addressing the target behavior as well as general obedience training. This method of training also poses fewer risks to dog welfare and quality of the human-dog relationship. Given these results we suggest that there is no evidence to indicate that E-collar training is necessary, even for its most widely cited indication.
Article
Full-text available
The scientific study of animal affect (emotion) is an area of growing interest. Whilst research on mechanism and causation has predominated, the study of function is less advanced. This is not due to a lack of hypotheses; in both humans and animals, affective states are frequently proposed to play a pivotal role in coordinating adaptive responses and decisions. However, exactly how they might do this (what processes might implement this function) is often left rather vague. Here we propose a framework for integrating animal affect and decision-making that is couched in modern decision theory and employs an operational definition that aligns with dimensional concepts of core affect and renders animal affect empirically tractable. We develop a model of how core affect, including short-term (emotion-like) and longer-term (mood-like) states, influence decision-making via processes that we label affective options, affective predictions, and affective outcomes and which correspond to similar concepts in schema of the links between human emotion and decision-making. Our framework is generalisable across species and generates questions for future research.
Article
Full-text available
Validated measures of animal affect are crucial to research spanning numerous disciplines. Judgement bias, which assesses decision-making under ambiguity, is a promising measure of animal affect. One way of validating this measure is to administer drugs with affect-altering properties in humans to non-human animals and determine whether the predicted judgement biases are observed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from 20 published research articles that use this approach, from which 557 effect sizes were extracted. Pharmacological manipulations overall altered judgement bias at the probe cues as predicted. However, there were several moderating factors including the neurobiological target of the drug, whether the drug induced a relatively positive or negative affective state in humans, dosage, and the presented cue. This may partially reflect interference from adverse effects of the drug which should be considered when interpreting results. Thus, the overall pattern of change in animal judgement bias appears to reflect the affect-altering properties of drugs in humans, and hence may be a valuable measure of animal affective valence.
Article
Full-text available
Several studies on age-related cognitive decline in dogs involve laboratory dogs and prolonged training. We developed two spatial tasks that required a single 1-h session. We tested 107 medium-large sized dogs: “young” (N=41, aged 2.5–6.5 years) and “old” (N=66, aged 8–14.5 years). Our results indicated that, in a discrimination learning task and in a reversal learning task, young dogs learned significantly faster than the old dogs, indicating that these two tasks could successfully be used to investigate differences in spatial learning between young and old dogs. We also provide two novel findings. First, in the reversal learning, the dogs trained based on the location of stimuli learned faster than the dogs trained based on stimulus characteristics. Most old dogs did not learn the task within our cut-off of 50 trials. Training based on an object’s location is therefore more appropriate for reversal learning tasks. Second, the contrast between the response to the positive and negative stimuli was narrower in old dogs, compared to young dogs, during the reversal learning task, as well as the cognitive bias test. This measure favors comparability between tasks and between studies. Following the cognitive bias test, we could not find any indication of differences in the positive and negative expectations between young and old dogs. Taken together, these findings do not support the hypothesis that old dogs have more negative expectations than young dogs and the use of the cognitive bias test in older dogs requires further investigation.
Article
Full-text available
Cognitive processes are often biased by emotions. In humans, affective disorders are accompanied by pessimistic judgement, while optimistic judgement is linked to emotional stability. Similar to humans, animals tend to interpret ambiguous stimuli negatively after experiencing stressful events, although the long-lasting impact on judgement bias has rarely been investigated. We measure judgement bias in female chicks (Gallus gallus domesticus) after exposure to cold stress, and before and after exposure to additional unpredictable stressors. Additionally, we explore if brain monoamines can explain differences in judgement bias. Chicks exposed to cold stress did not differ in judgement bias compared to controls, but showed sensitivity to additional stressors by having higher motivation for social reinstatement. Environmental complexity reduced stress-induced negative judgement bias, by maintaining an optimistic bias in individuals housed in complex conditions even after stress exposure. Moreover, judgement bias was related to dopamine turnover rate in mesencephalon, with higher activity in individuals that had a more optimistic response. These results demonstrate that environmental complexity can buffer against negative effects of additive stress and that dopamine relates to judgement bias in chicks. These results reveal that both internal and external factors can mediate emotionally biased judgement in animals, thus showing similarities to findings in humans.
Article
Full-text available
Affective states influence decision-making under ambiguity in humans and other animals. Individuals in a negative state tend to interpret ambiguous cues more negatively than individuals in a positive state. We demonstrate that the fruit fly,Drosophila melanogaster, also exhibits state-dependent changes in cue interpretation.Drosophilawere trained on a Go/Go task to approach a positive (P) odour associated with a sugar reward and actively avoid a negative (N) odour associated with shock. Trained flies were then either shaken to induce a purported negative state or left undisturbed (control), and given a choice between: air or P; air or N; air or ambiguous odour (1 : 1 blend of P : N). Shaken flies were significantly less likely to approach the ambiguous odour than control flies. This 'judgement bias' may be mediated by changes in neural activity that reflect evolutionarily primitive affective states. We cannot say whether such states are consciously experienced, but use of this model organism's versatile experimental tool kit may facilitate elucidation of their neural and genetic basis.
Article
Clicker training has been a popular form of training for decades and is utilized in zoos, aquariums and shelters. Only a handful of studies have investigated the efficacy of the clicker training method itself despite its widespread popularity. In the first study we used 30 shelter puppies, naïve to training, that were split into three different groups: Clicker + primary reinforcement, vocal praise + primary reinforcement and primary reinforcement alone. Each puppy was then trained to perform a “stay” command using seven shaping approximation steps. Puppies had 50 trials to get as far as they could in the shaping plan. We found that puppies in the primary reinforcement alone group significantly out preformed puppies in the clicker + primary reinforcement group (p = 0.004). A second experiment was conducted to see if the type of behavior trained would influence the efficacy of clicker use. For the second experiment we trained a wave, a behavior that required multiple topographical steps. We used 60 shelter puppies, naïve to training, and split them into the same three groups (clicker + primary reinforcement, vocal praise + primary reinforcement and primary reinforcement alone). No significant differences were found between conditions (p > 0.05) when training the wave behavior. These results suggest that different reinforcement strategies may be more or less effective depending on the type of behavior trained, however we did not find evidence that the addition of a clicker or verbal cue enhanced training performance in either condition compared to using primary reinforcement alone. More research is needed to determine if clickers may have other benefits beyond basic training progression.
Article
The use of aversive-based training methods has been suggested to negatively affect dog-human attachment. However, the scientific evidence for this claim is relatively limited. Previous studies relied upon owner reports of training methods or on potentially confounded measures of attachment (e.g., eye gaze). The aim of the present study was to comprehensively and objectively investigate the relationship between aversive- and reward-based training methods and dog-owner attachment. Companion dogs (n = 34) recruited from 6 different dog training schools (3 reward-based and 3 aversive-based) were given a counterbalanced version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test. The presence and absence of the owner and a stranger in a room with the dog was manipulated over different episodes. Dogs’ behavior was then analyzed for attachment-related behaviors: contact-maintenance, separation-distress and secure-base effect, as well as following upon separation and greeting upon reunion. Results showed no significant differences between groups for contact-maintenance and separation distress behaviors. However, dogs trained with reward-based methods, but not dogs trained with aversive-based methods, played more in the presence of the owner than in the presence of the stranger, and they also followed and greeted the owner more than the stranger, although these differences were found for only one procedure order. Our study is the first to investigate the relationship between training methods and attachment using a standard and well-validated method for the assessment of dog-owner attachment.