The click is not the trick: the efficacy of clickers and other reinforcement methods in training naïve dogs to perform new tasks

Background A handheld metal noisemaker known as a “clicker” is widely used to train new behaviors in dogs; however, evidence for their superior efficacy compared to providing solely primary reinforcement or other secondary reinforcers in the acquisition of novel behavior in dogs is largely anecdotal. Methods Three experiments were conducted to determine under what circumstances a clicker secondary reinforcer may result in acquisition of a novel behavior more rapidly or to a higher level compared to other readily available reinforcement methods. In Experiment 1, three groups of 30 dogs each were shaped to emit a novel sit and stay behavior of increasing duration with either the delivery of food alone, a verbal stimulus paired with food, or a clicker with food. The group that received only a primary reinforcer reached a significantly higher criterion of training success than the group trained with a verbal secondary reinforcer. Performance of the group experiencing a clicker as a secondary reinforcer was intermediate between the other two groups, but not significantly different from either. In Experiment 2, three groups of 25 dogs each were shaped to emit a nose targeting behavior and then perform that behavior at increasing distances from the experimenter using the same three methods of positive reinforcement as in Experiment 1. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found. In Experiment 3, three groups of 30 dogs each were shaped to emit a nose-targeting behavior upon an array of wooden blocks with task difficulty increasing throughout testing using the same three methods of positive reinforcement as previously tested. No statistically significant differences between the groups were found. Results Overall, the findings suggest that both primary reinforcement alone as well as a verbal or clicker secondary reinforcer can be used successfully in training a dog to perform a novel behavior, but that no positive reinforcement method demonstrated significantly greater efficacy than any other.

Perbedaan Perilaku Lekat Bayi Pada Orangtua Antara Yang Diberi Asi Eksklusif Dengan Yang Tidak Diberi Asi Eksklusif (Studi Pada Bayi Umur 6 Bulan – 3 Tahun di Kecamatan Candi Kabupaten Sidoarjo)

Air Susu Ibu (ASI) merupakan makanan yang paling sempurna bagi bayi. Memberikan ASI berarti memberikan zat-zat gizi yang bernilai gizi tinggi yang dibutuhkan untuk pertumbuhan dan perkembangan saraf dan otak, serta mewujudkan ikatan emosional antara ibu dan bayinya. Teori belajar mengatakan bahwa kelekatan antara ibu dan anak dimulai saat ibu menyusui bayi sebagai proses pengurangan rasa lapar yang menjadi dorongan dasar. Susu yang diberikan ibu menjadi primary reinforcer dan ibu menjadi secondary reinforcer. (Gewirtz dalam Hetherington dan Parke, 1999 dalam Ervika 2000, http//Library usu.co.id). Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui perbedaan perilaku lekat bayi pada orang tua antara yang diberi ASI Eksklusif dengan yang tidak diberi ASI Eksklusif. Dari hasil Uji t probabilitasnya adalah < 0,05 yaitu 0,000 berarti hipotesis diterima. Berdasarkan tabel t-test, ttabel pada taraf kepercayaan 95% maka didapatkan nilai ttabel sebesar 1,645. Oleh karena thitung > ttabel yaitu sebesar 13,832 maka hipotesis diterima. Dengan demikian berdasarkan uji tersebut di atas terdapat perbedaan Perilaku lekat bayi pada orang tua antara yang diberi ASI eksklusif dengan yang tidak diberi ASI eksklusif.

Monetary Effects on Fear Conditioning

Previous research has found that the loss of money as a negative secondary reinforcer was as effective as a primary reinforcer during fear conditioning. The purpose of the present study was to explore the effect of monetary gain as a positive secondary reinforcer in fear conditioning. Participants were assigned to a high-reward group or low-reward group. Three kinds of squares prompting non-compensation shock, compensation shock, and no shock were presented. Skin conductance responses (SCRs) and self-ratings were recorded. The results revealed that (a) both SCRs and self-ratings in the compensation shock condition were lower than in the non-compensation shock condition, suggesting that money might block the learning stage of fear conditioning; and (b) a higher ratio of fear reduction was present in self-rating when compared to SCRs, suggesting that people might overstate the utility of money, subjectively. Monetary effects, the effects of different amounts of money, and the differences between subjective and physiological levels are discussed.

Training influences problem-solving abilities in dogs (canis lupus familiaris)

One way of testing cognitive abilities (or intelligence”) is by using so-called “means-end” tests, where the desired outcome can only be achieved by utilising some means to that end. Pulling a piece of food that is out of reach into reach with the help of an attached string is one of these means-end tasks. The ability of dogs to solve this problem has so far been only tested in 4 studies, all from the 1930s and 40s, with a total of 11 dogs and varying success. Additionally to exploring this basic cognitive ability in pet dogs the study explored whether training, and in particular so-called Clicker training (operant conditioning with secondary reinforcer), had an influence on the performance in this task.