Using the minuses (P- and R-)

mudpuppy

well, let's discuss ecollars again. Some people use them as a punishment- dog does something they don't like, or dog refuses a command, they zap dog. Dog stops doing that. This has been shown to cause serious adverse consequences to doggy mental health, even in very hard dogs such as protection-trained dogs.

True, it can cause serious adverse consequences to the dog's mental health. It also can be a life saving training technique in the most extreme of circumstances. It also doesn't cause adverse consequences to the dog's mental health - *if it's done correctly*. Most people do it incorrectly. I have seen several trainers who use the ecollar in this way whose dogs show no indication of adverse consequences to their mental health, however it is not something I would want to see done by the general public, or even by many professionals, as it is easy to get it wrong. Done correctly in this way, it truly is no different from correcting a dog with a prong collar except that the level of correction is more easily controlled, the timing is more easily accurate, and it can be done from a distance and off leash.

Other people use them as "interruptors", i.e. an intrusive weird sensation to break up the dog's train of thought followed by attention being re-directed to the handler- in fact, you can readily teach a dog to look at you whenever he feels a low-level stim, using the stim as a cue. This is probably one of the more common uses when people only want to use the ecollar for recall training. I have trouble believing it is viewed as a punishment by the dog, since no behaviors are reduced in frequency; instead, the behavior of paying attention to the handler is increased in frequency. Interruptor + negative reinforcement?

As with anything that is intended as an interrupter, whether or not it is a punishment depends on how the dog perceives it.

I think using an ecollar as +P is kind of silly, they work nicely as negative reinforcement. The ecollar is set very low, such that it is not painful to the dog, just feels mildly unpleasant. Feels like a bug crawling on your skin (to me, anyway). The second the dog does what you want, the stim goes off.  It's not punishment, since no behavior is reduced in frequency in future, no behavior is stopped. It's pure negative reinforcement: the dog complies, and an aversive is removed from the dog.[/P]

I think it is horribly unfair to the dog to introduce an aversive before the dog has even done somethng wrong!

Unlike punishment-trained dogs, dogs taught with ecollars don't seem to "shut down", and seem willing to experiment and offer behaviors. We have a local training center that teaches basic obedience this way, and they produce lovely well-mannered dogs. They refer these dogs to our center if the owners want to pursue sports or higher levels of obedience, and these dogs, unlike punishment-trained dogs, rapidly learn how to "play the clicker" and offer behaviors. The only adverse consequence we've observed is many of these dogs take a little while to develop drive.

Dogs trained correctly with punishment are not "shut down". One of the differences you're probably seeing is that the dog doesn't associate the ecollar stim with the handler, whereas with a leash and collar correction he does. That doesn't make the stim and less of a punishment. If I'm training a dog for sport, I certainly don't want to use a method that will impede the development of drive. IMO, if that is believed to be an OK consequence of these lovely well-mannered dogs, then I would seek out a different trainer in a hurry. It sounds like the drive is being suppressed and then needs to be rebuilt.

mudpuppy

well, let's discuss ecollars again. Some people use them as a punishment- dog does something they don't like, or dog refuses a command, they zap dog. Dog stops doing that. This has been shown to cause serious adverse consequences to doggy mental health, even in very hard dogs such as protection-trained dogs.

I agree.

mudpuppy

Other people use them as "interruptors", i.e. an intrusive weird sensation to break up the dog's train of thought followed by attention being re-directed to the handler- in fact, you can readily teach a dog to look at you whenever he feels a low-level stim, using the stim as a cue. This is probably one of the more common uses when people only want to use the ecollar for recall training. I have trouble believing it is viewed as a punishment by the dog, since no behaviors are reduced in frequency; instead, the behavior of paying attention to the handler is increased in frequency. Interruptor + negative reinforcement?

If it's used that way, then it would not be a P+, no.

mudpuppy

I think using an ecollar as +P is kind of silly, they work nicely as negative reinforcement. The ecollar is set very low, such that it is not painful to the dog, just feels mildly unpleasant. Feels like a bug crawling on your skin (to me, anyway).

Well, an ecollar, in order to work in its very essence, has to be at least mildly aversive, and it only works to more aversive from there with increasing pain if the milder version isn't enough (and this results in increasing to pain levels quickly). Not that it relates to OC, but it's just one reason why I don't use them myself.

corgipower

True, it can cause serious adverse consequences to the dog's mental health. It also can be a life saving training technique in the most extreme of circumstances. It also doesn't cause adverse consequences to the dog's mental health - *if it's done correctly*.

I don't think it comes down to how correctly it is done, I think it has to do with whether or not the dog is "hard" enough to handle it. The collar can indeed be used "correctly" and still have many adverse reactions for dogs. The risk is always there. Just because it doesn't happen with all dogs, or all dogs of a few subsets of breeds, doesn't mean the risk isn't there. I think it's important to differentiate between "always causing problems", "never causing problems when done right", and "has a risk to cause problems even when used correctly".

corgipower

I think it is horribly unfair to the dog to introduce an aversive before the dog has even done somethng wrong!

I do agree. I think of teaching a puppy to sit or lie down. If you're actually using it in the true sense of the word, with R-, to teach a puppy to sit you simply press the "Continuous" button until the puppy sits. If the puppy has no idea what it is supposed to do, that can only be very very aversive to me! And likely the collar would go to auto-shut-off before the pup realized it was supposed to sit. Unless you are physically positioning the pup, having the shock on while it sits and then turning it off when the pup is positioned - it might work a little faster that way. Or you are luring the pup somehow, while shocking, and instead of giving the treat end the shock when the puppy sits.

I think it needs to be clarified a little more, or an example given. Because based on this information provided, teaching with an e-collar would be worse for a dog than receiving a well-timed P+, and set the dog up for a lot more intitial confusion, frustration, and anxiety. At least with a well-timed P+ the dog knows exactly what caused the P+, whereas with an ecollar until the pup happens upon the right behaviour it is continuously being shocked.

I think it is horribly unfair to the dog to introduce an aversive before the dog has even done somethng wrong!

you're still thinking in terms of punishment-waiting for the dog to do something wrong, instead of reinforcing the dog when he does something right.  I think most punishments delivered to dogs are horribly unfair, because in most cases the dog hasn't the foggiest idea of what he is supposed to be doing or why he got punished. Handler error, dog suffers the consequences.

I'm not advocating ecollars, by the way. I'm just saying one use of negative reinforcement to train dogs is via ecollars; it's quite effective, and seems to have fewer adverse consequences than applying lots of punishments to dogs. Actually, if one must use collar-corrections on a dog, I would think ecollar corrections would be more effective than collar-pops because of the far better control over one's timing in delivering the punishment, and also the fine control over the severity of the punishment. Plus you don't need a leash, so you don't have any "transition to off leash" problems.

Hmm. I think I am very anti-collar-popping. Worst dog training method ever devised.

And no, even dogs "trained correctly" with punishment are much more shut-down than dogs trained with ecollars. By shut-down I mean how long it takes them, when they arrive at our center, to begin to be willing to offer behaviors to seek reinforcement. Because, as I have mentioned, the only way for a dog to really figure out why he got punished or reinforced is to experiment with behaviors. Punishment stops behaviors; reinforcement encourages them to happen more often. Even -R does that.

mudpuppy

you're still thinking in terms of punishment-waiting for the dog to do something wrong, instead of reinforcing the dog when he does something right.  I think most punishments delivered to dogs are horribly unfair, because in most cases the dog hasn't the foggiest idea of what he is supposed to be doing or why he got punished. Handler error, dog suffers the consequences.

I don't think that corgipower is necessarily thinking in terms of punishment. But the shock is an aversive, even if it is applied first. The dog is simply working to avoid it. And whether or not it increases or decreases behaviour, aversives can certainly have long-lasting effects either way.

mudpuppy

I'm just saying one use of negative reinforcement to train dogs is via ecollars; it's quite effective, and seems to have fewer adverse consequences than applying lots of punishments to dogs.

Ironically I have seen differently. I've seen pretty much equal (risk of) issues in dogs taught in both ways, because again it's due to the aversiveness that dictates side effects, not just that it was a punisher. Being a reinforcer doesn't make it in any way less aversive - all it means is that the dog is working to avoid the yucky thing instead of having the yucky thing happen as a result of behaviour.

mudpuppy

Actually, if one must use collar-corrections on a dog, I would think ecollar corrections would be more effective than collar-pops because of the far better control over one's timing in delivering the punishment, and also the fine control over the severity of the punishment.

I think both could be equally effective if applied with equal skill. Effectiveness is really how well it changes behaviour - and both work to change behaviour. Granted there is better control over the severity.

 

Kim_MacMillan

If it's used that way, then it would not be a P+, no.

 

Kim, How would you teach a dog to look at you when he feels the stim? Not saying that you personally would do that. I was just wondering about the procedure...

Kim_MacMillan

I think it needs to be clarified a little more, or an example given. Because based on this information provided, teaching with an e-collar would be worse for a dog than receiving a well-timed P+, and set the dog up for a lot more intitial confusion, frustration, and anxiety. At least with a well-timed P+ the dog knows exactly what caused the P+, whereas with an ecollar until the pup happens upon the right behaviour it is continuously being shocked.

Boy, you ain't wrong. I would LOVE to hear how it is better than punishment if the dog is receiving a constant shock until he does the right thing...  Unfortunately, all my questions to mudpuppy about this now go unanswered. Good luck getting an example.

I think you might be a bit confused about what the constant estim feels like- I've done it to myself and had my SO done it to me (so it was a surprise). I would liken the use of -R via ecollar to, for example, applying pressure to a dog' s butt until the dog sits- aversive enough to encourage compliance, but nothing really aversive. Or, something you might directly understand, holding a puppy down until he stops struggling, then releasing. That's negative reinforcement too. Or, the phone rings and it bugs you enough to hunt it down to make it stop ringing. About on that level of aversive.

People hear "shock" and they think of that time they stuck their finger in the outlet, or had a nasty static shock from walking across the carpet in socks. Really, it feels like a tickle or a bug crawling on your skin. Weird feeling, not exactly pleasant, but hurts a lot less than a pop on a choker (which I've also had someone do to me).

how to teach dog to look at you when given a low-level estim: simple transfer of cues. Offer the new cue, then offer the old cue, then reward. So the dog knows his name and knows to look at you when you call his name, cause you shower him with good things when you call his name and he looks at you. Pulse of stim, ROVER, dog looks at you, feed dog a treat. Repeat ten times, then do the pulse of stim, and wait, dog will mostly likely look at you.

Kim_MacMillan:

I think it needs to be clarified a little more, or an example given. Because based on this information provided, teaching with an e-collar would be worse for a dog than receiving a well-timed P+, and set the dog up for a lot more intitial confusion, frustration, and anxiety. At least with a well-timed P+ the dog knows exactly what caused the P+, whereas with an ecollar until the pup happens upon the right behaviour it is continuously being shocked.

let me provide a description of various classes I've seen, teaching puppies to sit:

local ecollar franchise: pups are lured into sit using a treat three or four times. Stim is then applied and pup is lured into sit and stim is turned off. Repeat three or four times. Stim is applied and pup sits, stim turned off, pup is given treats and praise. Cue of sit is only introduced after the pup is offering sit in response to stim. Stim is rapidly phased out, as are treats, but both may be re-applied as you go out and work in more distracting locations (proofing).  

local clicker class: pups are lured into a sit using a treat, clicked and treated three or four times. Owner then waits, pup offers the sit, click and reward. Cue of sit is only introduced after the pup is happily offering sit. Clicker rapidly phased out, as are treats, but both may be re-applied as you go out and work in more distracting locations.

mudpuppy

let me provide a description of various classes I've seen, teaching puppies to sit:

local ecollar franchise: pups are lured into sit using a treat three or four times. Stim is then applied and pup is lured into sit and stim is turned off. Repeat three or four times. Stim is applied and pup sits, stim turned off, pup is given treats and praise. Cue of sit is only introduced after the pup is offering sit in response to stim. Stim is rapidly phased out, as are treats, but both may be re-applied as you go out and work in more distracting locations (proofing).  

Sorry, I'm stll not seeing where this is *FAIR* to the dog.

I'm not claiming it's fair to the dog. I'm describing how many people train dogs "using the minuses". It seems to be effective, both as a "proofing" and as in initial "teaching" method.

mudpuppy

I think you might be a bit confused about what the constant estim feels like- I've done it to myself and had my SO done it to me (so it was a surprise).

I'm not sure who this was addressed to, but I'm certainly not confused as to what the continuous shock feels like. I spent a number of months working under an ecollar trainer in a boarding facility, and learned a lot from that experience. Within that experience, I experimented with two versions of DogTra collars and another version of which I don't remember the brand name. All three collars had different types of settings so it gave me a good sample to practice with.

I too have tested it on myself. In fact to get a better understanding of it, I tested these collars on various body parts, to see what difference in feeling occurred. So because of that, I DID try it on my neck, my hands (back and palm), my arm (lower and upper), my lower leg, and the top of my foot. No particular reason for the pattern except to get a wide range of areas to test on, and this way I could try to get a range of what the dog "might" feel as we don't know what they truly feel. 

I tested at various levels as well, and I was surprised by my results. The sensation produced differed greatly depending on where the shock was located. Even on the same body part, positioned slightly differently, it presented a different intensity of the same shock level. So one placement on the back of my hand felt one way, and moving it two inches to the right or back it changed. The sensitivity was quite different between the different body parts as well, I could go much higher in some body areas than others. I did feel a tiny sensation that I wouldn't call painful at the lower levels. But the funny part is in every dog I've seen worked on these collars (and I saw a lot, believe me), all of them were at least double that setting! So much for a "tap" or "tickle" (which the lady I worked under also told people). One Pittie mix worked routinely on a setting of 80/100 on one of the collars - I was stunned, I couldn't get above 45/100 (and another one was 3/8) before becoming very freaked out and stressed about it from the pain it induced. I couldn't imagine doing 80, and I couldn't make myself get that high. The average use of the collar was much, much higher than what I would consider "minor". Looking back I wish I had have kept notes from my observations, and record the levels that different dogs worked at. But hindsight's a wonderful thing.

As for the word "Shock". Honestly, I call it what it is. "Stim", to me, is a sugar-coating term. It is electricity through and through. Kind of like calling a punishment a punishment, and not carrying emotional baggage with the term, it's easier and more beneficial IMO to call a shock a shock, as that's what it is. There's really no reason to cover it up with another term. Low-level shock is low level shock, and high-level shock is high-level shock. It's all electricity.

well, doggy necks are lot less sensitive than most human body parts. When I was training my dogs to not-chase-deer I used a level that was not painful to me and it seemed effective. I have a very soft dog, cringes at a no-reward-marker, and she seemed completely undisturbed by the ecollar sensation.

That said, I really DON'T advocate using them for basic training of any kind. They have their place. Life-saving training like snake aversion training, or getting a good recall so your dogs don't get squashed by cars. What's kind of funny is I talked to the ecollar trainer about it, and she said they started up their venture because all of the other local trainers use a lot of food-rewards, and so they got all the clients who thought it was somehow wrong or bad to use food in training- imagine that, who could possibly have such an attitude. Yet these owners had no hesitation in strapping ecollars onto 12-week-old puppies.

mudpuppy

well, doggy necks are lot less sensitive than most human body parts. When I was training my dogs to not-chase-deer I used a level that was not painful to me and it seemed effective. I have a very soft dog, cringes at a no-reward-marker, and she seemed completely undisturbed by the ecollar sensation.

That said, I really DON'T advocate using them for basic training of any kind. They have their place. Life-saving training like snake aversion training, or getting a good recall so your dogs don't get squashed by cars. What's kind of funny is I talked to the ecollar trainer about it, and she said they started up their venture because all of the other local trainers use a lot of food-rewards, and so they got all the clients who thought it was somehow wrong or bad to use food in training- imagine that, who could possibly have such an attitude. Yet these owners had no hesitation in strapping ecollars onto 12-week-old puppies.

There are better methods that would avoid the use of food without having to shock a puppy. Good grief!! Ya know, they could just use hugs ;)