Skinner vs Pavlov

[Jon Couch]

He had to use OC, to get the dog to the point of being classically conditioned to salivate in response to the bell.

And he also has to use OC, to maintain that conditioning.

I don't know if I agree with this because the feeding of the dogs was not based on the requirement of salivation. The dogs anticipated the food based on the change in their surroundings. There was no Addition or subtraction of stimulus positive or negative that altered the feedings. The dogs merely made an association base on cues they received (the bell and the assistant) OC is based on the addition or Subtraction of a positive or negative stimulus. CC is based on the dogs making associations or anticipation of an outcome, but the anticipation is not required to obtain the outcome.

[copterdoc]

I don't know if I agree with this because the feeding of the dogs was not based on the requirement of salivation. The dogs anticipated the food based on the change in their surroundings. There was no Addition or subtraction of stimulus positive or negative that altered the feedings.

Salivation, is an unconditioned response. It becomes conditioned, as it is reinforced with the reward of food.

If salivation is punished, it will decrease as a result.

Once associated with the bell, the association is continually reinforced with the reward of food.
If the association with the bell is not continually reinforced, the conditioned association will be lost over time, through extinction.

The dogs merely made an association base on cues they received (the bell and the assistant) OC is based on the addition or Subtraction of a positive or negative stimulus.

They had to first be conditioned to the point that they could make that association. And that would be Operant Conditioning. Not Classical Conditioning.

CC is based on the dogs making associations or anticipation of an outcome, but the anticipation is not required to obtain the outcome.

Yes it is.
That is what Classical Conditioning IS!

[Jon Couch]

Ok I see what you are saying! Getting the food ONCE they started to salivate would actually be considered Positive Reinforcement even though the salivation is not required to be fed.

[copterdoc]

Ok I see what you are saying! Getting the food ONCE they started to salivate would actually be considered Positive Reinforcement even though the salivation is not required to be fed.

Yes.

Our ultimate goal in training, is to end up with a classically conditioned behavior that we desire.
But, we also have to use operant conditioning to get there.

We can fail at either one.

[Jon Couch]

Yes.

Our ultimate goal in training, is to end up with a classically conditioned behavior that we desire.
But, we also have to use operant conditioning to get there.

We can fail at either one.

Ok! Makes Sense! so you and Darrin Greene are saying the same thing that we should be using OC principles to achieve the ultimate goal of CC. Am I on the same page here?

[copterdoc]

Ok! Makes Sense! so you and Darrin Greene are saying the same thing that we should be using OC principles to achieve the ultimate goal of CC. Am I on the same page here?

I can't speak for Darrin, but I think that it helps to think of it as using Operant Conditioning as the "map" and Classical Conditioning as the "proof".

Once we know that the dog has been classically conditioned to perform as desired, we can't just throw away the "map" either. We could still get lost.

[copterdoc]

That example is sort of opposite of what I was thinking about.

With CC, a stimulus is associated with a response, until the stimulus itself elicits the response.

That stimulus can be anything that a dog detects with one of it's 5 senses. And the response, can be any behavior that the dog has been conditioned to perform on cue.

We can associate any stimulus with any action, and condition the dog to perform that action in response to the stimulus.
And that stimulus can be aversive.

This here, is what I was trying to get to.

Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer. To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.

[Jon Couch]

This here, is what I was trying to get to.

Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa

Studies have shown that things which are traditionally thought of as aversive (for example, electric shocks) can be set up in such a way that the introduction of an electric shock can actually increase responding - thus making it, technically, a reinforcer. To simplify the explanation, the electric shocks act as a signal or cue for future events (i.e. the presentation of food), and so they take on a conditioned value which can be used to increase behavior.

Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.

[copterdoc]

Makes sense you could actually load your E-Collar like you would a clicker. On very low levels obviously.

It doesn't have to be very low levels, if the dog has been classically conditioned to respond to the stimulus.

[copterdoc]

And it isn't bridged, like a clicker is. It doesn't work that way.