Literature DB >> 32897444

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

Giulia Cimarelli1,2, Julia Schoesswender3, Roberta Vitiello3,4,5,6, Ludwig Huber3, Zsófia Virányi3.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clicker training; Cognitive bias; Domestic dog; Operant conditioning; Partial rewarding; Personality

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32897444      PMCID: PMC7829239          DOI: 10.1007/s10071-020-01425-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anim Cogn        ISSN: 1435-9448            Impact factor:   3.084


  21 in total

1.  Animal behaviour: cognitive bias and affective state.

Authors:  Emma J Harding; Elizabeth S Paul; Michael Mendl
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2004-01-22       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  Secondary reinforcement in rats as a function of information value and reliability of the stimulus.

Authors:  M D EGGER; N E MILLER
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1962-08

3.  Secondary reinforcement as affected by reward schedule and the testing situation.

Authors:  M R D'AMATO; R LACHMAN; P KIVY
Journal:  J Comp Physiol Psychol       Date:  1958-12

4.  Training nonhuman primates using positive reinforcement techniques.

Authors:  Mark J Prescott; Hannah M Buchanan-Smith
Journal:  J Appl Anim Welf Sci       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.440

5.  The effect of partial reinforcement on instrumental successive negative contrast in inbred Roman High- (RHA-I) and Low- (RLA-I) Avoidance rats.

Authors:  L Cuenya; M Sabariego; R Donaire; A Fernández-Teruel; A Tobeña; M J Gómez; A Mustaca; C Torres
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2011-12-21

6.  Rate changes after unscheduled omission and presentation of reinforcement.

Authors:  D W Zimmerman
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1971-05       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Positive reinforcement training in squirrel monkeys using clicker training.

Authors:  Timothy E Gillis; Amy C Janes; Marc J Kaufman
Journal:  Am J Primatol       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 2.371

8.  The advent of canine performance science: offering a sustainable future for working dogs.

Authors:  Mia Cobb; Nick Branson; Paul McGreevy; Alan Lill; Pauleen Bennett
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 1.777

Review 9.  The basic emotional circuits of mammalian brains: do animals have affective lives?

Authors:  Jaak Panksepp
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2011-08-19       Impact factor: 8.989

10.  Mood and personality interact to determine cognitive biases in pigs.

Authors:  Lucy Asher; Mary Friel; Kym Griffin; Lisa M Collins
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.703

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.