scholarly journals Partial rewarding during clicker training does not improve naïve dogs’ learning speed and induces a pessimistic-like affective state

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Cimarelli ◽  
Julia Schoesswender ◽  
Roberta Vitiello ◽  
Ludwig Huber ◽  
Zsófia Virányi

Abstract Clicker training is considered a welfare-friendly way of teaching novel behaviors to animals because it is mostly based on the positive reinforcement. However, trainers largely vary in their way of applying this training technique. According to the most, a reward (e.g., food) should follow every click, while others claim that dogs learn faster when the reward is sometimes omitted. One argument against the use of partial rewarding is that it induces frustration in the animal, raising concerns over its welfare consequences. Here, we investigated the effect of partial rewarding not only on training efficacy (learning speed), but also on dogs’ affective state. We clicker-trained two groups of dogs: one group received food after every click while the other group received food only 60% of the time. Considering previous evidence of the influencing role of personality on reactions to frustrated expectations, we included measurements of dogs’ emotional reactivity. We compared the number of trials needed to reach a learning criterion and their pessimistic bias in a cognitive bias test. No difference between the two groups emerged in terms of learning speed; however, dogs that were partially rewarded during clicker training showed a more pessimistic bias than dogs that were continuously rewarded. Generally, emotional reactivity was positively associated with a more pessimistic bias. Partial rewarding does not improve training efficacy, but it is associated with a negatively valenced affective state, bringing support to the hypothesis that partial rewarding might negatively affect dogs’ welfare.

2017 ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynna C Feng ◽  
Tiffani J Howell ◽  
Pauleen C Bennett

Clicker training refers to an animal training technique, derived from laboratory-based studies of animal learning and behaviour, in which a reward-predicting signal is delivered immediately following performance of a desired behaviour, and is subsequently followed by a reward. While clicker training is popular amongst dog training practitioners, scientific evaluation in applied settings has been largely unsuccessful in replicating the benefits of reward-predicting signals seen in laboratory animal studies. Here we present an analysis of dog trainers’ advice and perceptions, conducted to better understand clicker training as it occurs in the dog training industry. Twenty-five sources (13 interviews with dog trainers, 5 websites, and 7 books) were analysed using a deductive content analysis procedure. We found that, for many sources, “clicker training” referred not only to the technique, but also to a philosophy of training that emphasises positive reinforcement and the deliberate application of Learning Theory principles. Many sources reported that clicker training was fun, for both dog and handler, but that it could be frustrating for handlers to learn and sometimes cumbersome to juggle the extra equipment. In addition, while most sources recommended clicker training particularly when training new behaviours, many stated that it was no longer needed once the dog had learned the desired behaviour. When comparing industry recommendations to methods used in applied studies, different criteria were used for predictor signal conditioning. Inadequate conditioning of the predictor signal in empirical evaluations could partly explain the lack of learning benefits in applied studies. While future research is needed to verify the practitioner beliefs in a wider population, these results provide an in-depth description of what clicker training is, at least for the sources analysed, and a potential starting point for understanding methodological factors that could contribute to previous studies’ failure to demonstrate the benefits purported to exist by industry practitioners.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 135-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslaw Wyczesany ◽  
Szczepan J. Grzybowski ◽  
Jan Kaiser

Abstract. In the study, the neural basis of emotional reactivity was investigated. Reactivity was operationalized as the impact of emotional pictures on the self-reported ongoing affective state. It was used to divide the subjects into high- and low-responders groups. Independent sources of brain activity were identified, localized with the DIPFIT method, and clustered across subjects to analyse the visual evoked potentials to affective pictures. Four of the identified clusters revealed effects of reactivity. The earliest two started about 120 ms from the stimulus onset and were located in the occipital lobe and the right temporoparietal junction. Another two with a latency of 200 ms were found in the orbitofrontal and the right dorsolateral cortices. Additionally, differences in pre-stimulus alpha level over the visual cortex were observed between the groups. The attentional modulation of perceptual processes is proposed as an early source of emotional reactivity, which forms an automatic mechanism of affective control. The role of top-down processes in affective appraisal and, finally, the experience of ongoing emotional states is also discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Kahn ◽  
Daniel W. Cox ◽  
A. Myfanwy Bakker ◽  
Julia I. O’Loughlin ◽  
Agnieszka M. Kotlarczyk

Abstract. The benefits of talking with others about unpleasant emotions have been thoroughly investigated, but individual differences in distress disclosure tendencies have not been adequately integrated within theoretical models of emotion. The purpose of this laboratory research was to determine whether distress disclosure tendencies stem from differences in emotional reactivity or differences in emotion regulation. After completing measures of distress disclosure tendencies, social desirability, and positive and negative affect, 84 participants (74% women) were video recorded while viewing a sadness-inducing film clip. Participants completed post-film measures of affect and were then interviewed about their reactions to the film; these interviews were audio recorded for later coding and computerized text analysis. Distress disclosure tendencies were not predictive of the subjective experience of emotion, but they were positively related to facial expressions of sadness and happiness. Distress disclosure tendencies also predicted judges’ ratings of the verbal disclosure of emotion during the interview, but self-reported disclosure and use of positive and negative emotion words were not associated with distress disclosure tendencies. The authors present implications of this research for integrating individual differences in distress disclosure with models of emotion.


Author(s):  
Luisa Lugli ◽  
Stefania D’Ascenzo ◽  
Roberto Nicoletti ◽  
Carlo Umiltà

Abstract. The Simon effect lies on the automatic generation of a stimulus spatial code, which, however, is not relevant for performing the task. Results typically show faster performance when stimulus and response locations correspond, rather than when they do not. Considering reaction time distributions, two types of Simon effect have been individuated, which are thought to depend on different mechanisms: visuomotor activation versus cognitive translation of spatial codes. The present study aimed to investigate whether the presence of a distractor, which affects the allocation of attentional resources and, thus, the time needed to generate the spatial code, changes the nature of the Simon effect. In four experiments, we manipulated the presence and the characteristics of the distractor. Findings extend previous evidence regarding the distinction between visuomotor activation and cognitive translation of spatial stimulus codes in a Simon task. They are discussed with reference to the attentional model of the Simon effect.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xue Xia ◽  
Yansong Li ◽  
Yanqiu Wang ◽  
Jing Xia ◽  
Yitong Lin ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 252-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.M. Minni ◽  
G.F. de Medeiros ◽  
J.C. Helbling ◽  
A. Duittoz ◽  
N. Marissal-Arvy ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document