[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.

 

[steve schreiner]

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

Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa View Post
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.

Isn't this the way of the collar use today ..? A reinforcer of a known command ...IE: dog is in route and back nick back ...Stimulation when the dog is doing a command correctly? Steve S

 

[copterdoc]

Quote Originally Posted by Mr.Samsa View Post
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.

Isn't this the way of the collar use today ..? A reinforcer of a known command ...IE: dog is in route and back nick back ...Stimulation when the dog is doing a command correctly? Steve S

Yes.

But, that doesn't make sense does it?

 

[steve schreiner]

Yes.

But, that doesn't make sense does it?

It does to me ...Isn't it considered a neg reinforcer..? The big question is , How much do we want to use to keep it a reinforcer ..too much and it will become a pos punishment if it stops the behavior..Correct...? Steve S

 

[copterdoc]

It does to me .....

Honestly, it does to me too.

And I think it makes sense to anybody, that understands why we force fetch.
But, when you try to explain it to somebody that is only thinking Operant Conditioning, they just can't wrap their mind around it.

It's like a "bridge" to nowhere.

 

[copterdoc]

...Isn't it considered a neg reinforcer..?

I don't think so.
I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.

At least that's how we use it anyway.

But, when you get to arguing positive vs negative, as it applies to OC, things get really confusing.

Here's something that Dennis Voigt posted in the Simplifying Dog Learning Science sticky.

Positive and negative reinforcement: Should the distinction be preserved?Baron A, Galizio M.
Abstract

Michael (1975) reviewed efforts to classify reinforcing events in terms of whether stimuli are added (positive reinforcement) or removed (negative reinforcement). He concluded that distinctions in these terms are confusing and ambiguous. Of necessity, adding a stimulus requires its previous absence and removing a stimulus its previous presence. Moreover, there is no good basis, either behavioral or physiological, that indicates the involvement of distinctly different processes, and on these grounds he proposed that the distinction be abandoned. Despite the cogency of Michael's analysis, the distinction between positive and negative reinforcement is still being taught. In this paper, we reconsider the issue from the perspective of 30 years. However, we could not find new evidence in contemporary research and theory that allows reliable classification of an event as a positive rather than a negative reinforcer. We conclude by reiterating Michael's admonitions about the conceptual confusion created by such a distinction.

 

[Jon Couch]

I don't think so.
I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.

At least that's how we use it anyway.

But, when you get to arguing positive vs negative, as it applies to OC, things get really confusing.

Here's something that Dennis Voigt posted in the Simplifying Dog Learning Science sticky.

In order for it to be positive reinforcement it has to be associated as a good thing. I would tend to think that it would be considered Positive Punishment you are adding an deterrent to keep the dog from hunting, popping, going slow ect. It all just depends on how you look at it is FF more of a Negative punishment because you are taking the pressure away once the bumper is in the dogs mouth=grabbing the bumper is more likely.

Also in order for the stimulation for the E-collar to be considered a good thing you would have to condition the dog to a positive reinforcer before you could use it that way. How are you guys creating this association?

To make it really easy you need to think of "Negative" as removing something and "Positive" as adding something

Positive Reinforcement:
Present something good = behavior is more likely

Negative Reinforcement:
Take away something bad = behavior is less likely

Positive Punishment:
Present something bad = behavior is less likely

Negative Punishment:
Take away something good = behavior is more likely

 

[copterdoc]

In order for it to be positive reinforcement it has to be associated as a good thing.

Why?

If it's something that I add, it's positive.
If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.

There is nothing in Operant Conditioning, that says a dog has to "like" it.
Just because a dog "likes" a reward, doesn't mean that I can't punish behavior with a biscuit.

 

[Jon Couch]

Why?

If it's something that I add, it's positive.
If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.

There is nothing in Operant Conditioning, that says a dog has to "like" it.
Just because a dog "likes" a reward, doesn't mean that I can't punish behavior with a biscuit.

As far as I understand it you add something it is positive but is it positive reinforcement or positive punishment both are adding one good and one bad!
FF to me would be considered Negative Punishment which is to take away something bad to make a behavior more likely (ear pinch= bad take bumper into your mouth removes the bad stimulant thus making taking the bumper behavior more likely). Also you are assuming that the addition of the stimulus is increasing the behavior, but could it be said that adding the bad stimulus is in fact making the wrong behavior less likely (I give a left over and dog goes back I add a bad stimulus to make the back reaction less likely or the dog is sent on a blind and starts to break down and I add a back nick back which in turn makes the breaking down on a blind less likely because adding a bad makes a behavior less likely)

How would you punish with food? Dogs are hard wired to eat I think you would have a hard time convincing a dog that food is bad thing.

 

[steve schreiner]

I don't think so.
I think that it serves as Positive Reinforcement.

At least that's how we use it anyway.

But, when you get to arguing positive vs negative, as it applies to OC, things get really confusing.

Here's something that Dennis Voigt posted in the Simplifying Dog Learning Science sticky.

To begin with I agree with the notion of being very confusing when we try to describe things in verbal fashion....This is how I understand the 4 quadrants Pos reinforcement ='s a reward ( treat ,happy bumper) Pos punishment ='s give a correction ( dog jumps up smack on the head ...avoidance teaching ) Neg reinforcement ='s escape training ,ear pinched dog opens mouth .....Neg punishment ='s reward with held ( dog in sit position , food pan placed on floor ,dog moves ,food pan picked up ) a verbal no but no punishment administered....

It really doesn't matter how we use it ...It's important how the dog understands or how they associate it with the behavior going on at the time of the stimulation... I was taught to always repeat the rep after a stimulation (without pressure) to see the effects of that stimulation...In other words did the dog make the correct association ....OR ..did we have a failure to communicate...I also agree with your thoughts that both CC and OC go hand in hand toward a final out come... Good discussion and food for thought... Steve S

 

[Jennifer Henion]

Why?

If it's something that I add, it's positive.
If it increases the desired behavior, it was reinforcement.

There is nothing in Operant Conditioning, that says a dog has to "like" it.
Just because a dog "likes" a reward, doesn't mean that I can't punish behavior with a biscuit.

Your take on this is sounding more and more like sadomasochism.

In force to pile or force fetch or force to water, the force is not used so the dog will like it, right? Isn't it used to convey: "you're not going fast enough, you must get there now" and in order to escape this electronic pulse, you must go and get there now? Thus creating a fast response to escape the nick/burn or stick on your ass. So, if my thinking on this is right, the nick/burn used in force training is not an indicator that dog is about to be rewarded with a retrieve, it's to say:you're going to get burned until you escape it by doing this drill and show a compulsion to get to the pile or water. Right?