Why clicker train? (for the skeptics)

This is a great article by a brilliant clicker trainer called Melissa Alexander. It doesn't go through what clicker training is, but it may well wet your appetite for more if you're skeptical about clicker training.

Source:
Clicker Solutions Training Articles
http://www.clickersolutions.com/articles/2002/skeptics.htm

For the Skeptics

As far as I know -- I admit I don't know a lot -- the studies you want haven't been done. There have been studies comparing reinforcement, punishment, and a combination of the two, but the studies didn't break reinforcement and punishment into positive and negative. (No, I don't have cites for those.)

I think however, the question is flawed. The definitions of R+, R-, P+, and P- are based on results. They say behavior increased or decreased. They don't say "a little bit," "a lot," "permanently," or "until something better comes along." All five parts of OC (including extinction) *work* by definition. Within reinforcement and punishment, every application -- positive and negative -- falls on a continuum from mild to severe, depending on the situation. Neither positive nor negative is innately "stronger" than the other.

So what you're asking about is reliability. Reliability is a number, pure and simple. One type of punishment or one type of reinforcement is not, by definition, more reliable than another. Reliability comes from application, from repetition, from a good solid training plan, and from a dedicated trainer.

The Baileys did not publish, as far as I know. However, in the nearly 50 years (15,000+ animals in nearly 150 species) that Animal Behavior Enterprises operated, the Brelands (and later the Baileys), who were scientists first, kept exhaustive records on each animal.

Though they were leaders in the push for humane treatment of animals, they were not guided by moral choices. They chose these methods because they gave them the results they needed in a timely manner. They chose them because they worked.

Many of those animals were for those "automated" exhibits they used to have at fairs -- "play tic tac toe against the chicken," for example. They also trained some pretty elaborate all-animal stage shows. However, not all of their work was commercial. Much of it was for the government. Beginning with the "pigeon-bombing project" of WWII through most of the Cold War, they had lots of interesting training challenges.

* They trained pigeons to go out ahead of troops in the jungle to search for ambushes.
.
* They trained ravens to fly, guided by a laser, into enemy territory at night, and once at the correct building to take a picture using a tiny camera around their neck and then return.
.
* They trained wild-caught, adult dolphins to do open-water work. Some of the tasks required the animals to be out for eight or more hours at a time -- and realize, the boats weren't with them. The boats just waited for the dolpins to do their task and return. Interestingly, their dolphins had faster return times than swimming out times. (Reinforcement is a powerful thing!) They never lost a dolphin. Once a storm forced them to abandon their dolphins for 36 hours. When they returned, the dolphins were still there, doing the default behavior they reliability!
.
* They trained dogs to detect mines and trip-wires and, more importantly, to prevent soldiers from tripping them.
.
* They trained house cats to "spy" on the enemy. Imagine being able to pop up suddenly in front of a cat and shoot a shotgun -- or being able to have a snarling lunging dog jump right in the cat's face -- and having the cat remain still. Those were requirements of those cats' training.

Distance work was a given. Wild-caught birds free flew for hours in a hundred-square-miles. Wild-caught dolphins swam -- alone -- four hours away from the boat. The cats were guided from great distances by sound.

Whether the project was commercial or for the government, the Baileys required reliability. Not kind of reliable. Not even most-of-the-time reliable. Reliable. They weren't going for scores or a ribbon. There were, in many cases quite literally, human lives relying on the reliability of these animals' behavior.

And the method they used was the same one we're using here. They used positive reinforcement, extinction, and occasional negative punishment. They used positive punishment only about a dozen times in 50 years and 15000 animals -- and those times were at the request of the client.

They didn't choose this method because it felt good. They chose it because it gave them the results they needed in the fastest time. They experimented to find the best way. Trial and error. But most importantly, they kept DATA -- gobs and gobs of scientific data -- and based their programs off of that. What they "felt" like they knew simply had no bearing. Only the numbers, only the results.

The method -- the same method we're using here today -- is the method they found worked best. And it worked for every individual in every species they trained. That, more than anything else, convinces me to stick with this training method.

Honestly, the whole argument is utterly irrelevant. The Baileys have proven it can be done. Period. What remains is whether an individual trainer is capable of doing it. I've seen reliable traditionally-trained dogs and unreliable ones. Reliable positively-trained dogs and unreliable ones. Good traditional trainers and poor ones. Good positive trainers and poor ones.

If they're interested, they'll check it out. If not, their minds are closed, and they won't listen to anything you say. Don't waste your breath. Just train your dog to a level of reliability that satisfies you.

Melissa Alexander
mca @ clickersolutions.com
copyright 2001 Melissa C. Alexander

Intro till klickerträning (in swedish)

(från Agria Djurförsäkrings hemsida: http://www.agria.se/agria/index.nsf/LinkFrameSet?ReadForm&url=http://www.agria.se/Agria/text.nsf/id/1594)

Klickern - vägen till roligare träning
Klickerträning är numera en välkänd metod som hjälper till att höja motivationen för träning hos de allra flesta hundar! Här kan du läsa om grunderna för träningsmetoden.

Sedan början av 90-talet har klickerträningen blivit allt mer populär. Kännedomen och intresset har ökat lavinartat kanske mest tack vare amerikanskan Karen Pryor som har skrivit många böcker om just denna metod som tidigare mest användes vid delfinträning. Klickerträningen kan alltså inte ses som någon ny uppfinning då detta inlärningssätt varit känt sedan 30-talet.

Förstärkning av rätt beteende
Det finns egentligen inga gränser för vad du kan lära din hund med hjälp av en klicker. Det första du måste göra är att lära hunden att ”klick” betyder att det kommer en belöning. Ett klick kommer för hunden sedan betyda att just i det ögonblicket som du klickar gör den rätt och belöningen är på väg. Det är inte alls lika effektivt att använda rösten då vi på rösten kan ha olika tonlägen medan ett klick alltid låter likadant.

Rätt timing A och O
Det hela handlar om timing och att med klicket förstärka precis rätt ögonblick. Om du blir en duktig tränare så kommer din hund tycka att träningen är rolig och resultaten kommer då väldigt fort. Klickerträningen går att använda lika bra för lydnadsmoment som för att få bort oönskade beteenden, det är din fantasi som sätter gränserna.

Träning enbart i positiv anda
Med klickerträning arbetar du enbart i positiv anda. Det handlar om att förstärka ett korrekt beteende, inte att korrigera ett felaktigt beteende. En hund som klickertränas arbetar för att få belöningen, en hund som tränas med traditionella metoder arbetar ofta för att undvika obehaget av en korrigering.

Hunden blir aktiv
En annan fördel med klickerträningen är att hunden själv tar en aktiv del i träningsprocessen. Istället för att leda, rycka eller trycka på hunden för att visa vad den ska göra så får hunden själv räkna ut vad den ska göra för att få klicket och belöningen! En hund som inte är van vid denna typ av träning kan det i början gå lite trögt för eftersom den är van att bli visad till exakt vad den ska göra, men det kommer. Snart har du en mycket arbetsvillig hund.

Stort område
Klickerträning är ett oerhört stort område och det finns mycket bra böcker i ämnet. Innan du provar klickern på hunden bör du veta hur du ska göra. Sök på Internet, läs böcker eller varför inte gå en kurs. Dina tankar om hundträning kommer för alltid att vara förändrade!

Text: Sofie Lönn

Clicker Training basics using a hand-shy bird as an example

This is my favourite video to show people if they don't understand or are new to the concept of clicker training. In short, clicker training is the use of a conditioned reinforcer to shape desired behaviour. A "conditioned reinforcer" is something that the animals find motivating (such as a toy or food) paired (by association) with some sort of signal, in this case clicker trainers use a little tool that gives off a clear "click" sound when a button is pressed.




The learning principals can be applied to any animal (see the TAGteach video at the bottom - more about TAgteach: http://www.tagteach.com/).



Clicker training is a great way of training! Not convinced? Well then, tell me a better way to train a cat or even a chicken?! (That's how I got convinced):

Cats (also great intro-to-clicker-training video):



Chickens (great intro to the mechanics of clicker training):



Chicken agility:

Chimps and tools

Originally I started this as a swedish blog, but there were too many non-swedish speaking people I wanted to share this with so I am re-doing this. (Most swedes can manages english, but most english-speaking people can't read swedish).

Today's intersting fact I want to share is about tool making and chimpanzees. Very fascinating! I must say monkeys used to be some of my least favorite mammals but I am coming to like them more and more, it started when my partner gave me a book about them with lovely photographs. The part of me that find them the least favorite is the part that find them ever so slightly scary.

Article below is from:
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/01/chimpanzees-make-spears-to-hunt-bushbabies/

Chimpanzees make spears to hunt bushbabies

Posted on 1 March, 2007 by Ed Yong

Hunting with tools used to be considered a unqiuely human ability. But chimpanzees in Senegal have now been seen fashioning spears from branches and using them to hunt bushbabies.

It is midday in Senegal and a chimpanzee is on the hunt. Its target is a bushbaby, a small, cute and nocturnal primate that spends its days sheltered in the hollow of a tree, beyond the reach of predators like the chimp.

But this hunter is not like others – it is intelligent, it is dextrous, and it has a plan. Snapping off a thin branch, the chimp strips it of twigs, leaves and bark. And with its teeth, it sharpens the tip into a murderous point.

It forcefully jabs its newly fashioned spear into the bushbaby’s hiding place, stabbing the hapless animal multiple times. The chimp breaks off the end of the branch that sheltered its prey and drags it from its hiding place, wounded and ready to be eaten.

Many animals, from insects to birds, are known to use tools, but chimpanzees are the most advanced non-human toolmakers of all. They crack nuts with hammers and anvils, and fish for termites using sticks.

But fashioning weapons, and using them to hunt is a fresh and advanced trick, even for them, and a trait that was previously deemed to be uniquely human.

Bushbabies are powerful leapers and if the chimp exposed its hiding place, it would have a strong chance of escaping. So the chimps have developed a technique to take them by surprise, immobilising them for easy capture.

This type of planning and the tool manipulation that makes it possible, requires great foresight and intellectual complexity. It is testament to the mental powers of these, our closest relatives.

Jill Pruetz and Paco Bertolani from Iowa State University have only seen spear-making in a single population of chimps, living near the Fongoli River in southeastern Senegal.

The technique may well be a new one, as only a quarter of the chimps they observed went through all the necessary steps. One young male chimp was even seen using the spear playfully, possibly learning the technique from his elders.

Usually hunting is a pursuit for adult male chimps, but Pruetz and Bertolani only saw females and youngsters spearing bushbabies. They reasoned that these groups usually gain a much smaller share of the meat brought back by the male hunters, because they are physically weaker, or because they are too low in the social order. In a similar way, only female bottlenose dolphins have ever been seen to use tools.

These findings could have startling implications for the origins of human tool use. The traditional wisdom says that ancient human men were concerned with hunting while the women specialised in gathering.

But if the Fongoli chimps are any indication, human women could have found specialised hunting niches, and in doing so, played a disproportionately large role in the development of tool technology.

In any case, the Fongoli chimps are clearly worth further study, particularly since their patchwork home of woodland and grassland is reminiscent of the types of places that early humans inhabited. As such, they could provide us valuable clues about how our own technologies began.

But they will tell us nothing if they are all dead. All four subspecies of chimp are currently endangered, and in danger from the multiple threats of the bushmeat trade and habitat loss. Urgent efforts are needed to ensure that these intelligent animals will continue to enthral us for generations to come.

Pruetz & Bertolani. 2007 Curr Biol 17: 1-6."

Next article, source:
http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/opinion-not-so-unique-the-chimpanzee-stone-age-and-our-place-among-intelligent-animals/

Opinion: Not so unique - the chimpanzee Stone Age, and our place among intelligent animals

Posted on 13 March, 2007 by Ed Yong

This is the 50^th article for this blog. I’ve been writing for it for over six months now, and I pleasantly surprised that I’m still finding the enthusiasm to write for it regularly, and that people seem to be reading it.

This special article considers new evidence for the origins of chimpanzee tool use. It is the third piece of research I’ve seen in the last few months which shows that other animals share an ability previously thought to be the sole province of humans. In this article, I consider why these discoveries are now coming to light, and what they mean for us.

In the Ivory Coast, a small stream called Audrenisrou winds its way through the lowland rainforest of the Tai National Park. On the floodplain of this stream, at a site called Nuolo, lie several stones that seem unassuming at first glance. But to the trained eye, they are a window to the past.

Their shape is different to other stones that have been worn away by natural erosion. They have been flaked in systematic ways and many are flattened and sharp. Clearly, they were shaped by hand for a purpose – they are tools.

Their creators were not humans, but close relatives who lived in these rainforests thousands of years ago – the ancestors of modern chimpanzees.

Nuolo: humans or chimps?

The Nuolo stones were uncovered by Julio Mercader form the University of Calgary, Christophe Boesch from the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, and their colleagues. They are a magnificent archaeological find - the first ever evidence of prehistoric ape behaviour anywhere in the world.

Humans have a rich prehistoric past, informed by key archaeological finds like the Olduwan sites. These findings provide us with a window into the past, showing us how our ancestors developed the tools that continue to serve us well today. For chimps, no such sites have been found, until now.

The evidence that the Nuolo specimens were created by chimps is compelling. The density of stone pieces in the site, the preferred types of rocks, the length of the stone flakes and the patterns of wear closely mirror those of modern chimp tools.

They also carry the evidence of their past uses, as hammers and anvils for cracking nuts. Their crevices contain granules of starch that clearly came from nuts. Mercador and Boesch even managed to narrow the granules’ origins down to three possible species, all of which are currently cracked and eaten by today’s chimps. In contrast, the team found scant remains of tubers and legumes, the main food source of forest-dwelling humans.

This suggests that prehistoric humans who also, over time, visited the river-side site were not the creators of the Nuolo tools. But Mercador and Boesch found even stronger evidence.

Human hammers usually weight less than 400g, and even our ancestors’ anvils weighed no more than a kilogram. The far more powerful chimp with its larger hand can wield a tool many times heavier, anywhere from one to nine kilograms in weight.

Mercador and Boesch found that the stone tools at Nuolo most likely weighed about 2 kilograms, far too heavy heavier for a human but well within the limits of even a weak chimpanzee.

A chimpanzee Stone Age

Together, this evidence paints a remarkable picture of a chimpanzee Stone Age, when ancient chimps were clearly cracking nuts in the same way they do now, over four millennia ago.

Chimpanzees are highly advanced tool users. But some critics have sold short their abilities, claiming that they learned the use of tools by, for lack of a better word, apeing nearby humans.

The Nuolo finds puts paid to that suggestion. The tools predated the advent of farming in the rainforest by some time. Nuolo also lacks evidence of any of the other tools used by humans to grind and pound starchy tubers.

Among chimpanzees, nut-cracking is clearly a cultural tradition, passed down over time through over 200 generations of chimps. Humans and chimps either developed this technology independently, or they inherited it from a common ancestor who had already begun to use tools.

We’re not so unique after all

With studies like this, the list of attributes that are unique to humans seems to be getting smaller all the time. In just the last few months, scientists have found that chimpanzees hunt with spears, jays (below) can plan for the future, and even the long-dead dinosaur Bambiraptor, gripped prey with opposable fingers.

But as we start to come down from our pedestal, we should not mourn the loss of our position, but rejoice in our connectedness with the rest of the living world. These discoveries emphasise our position at the end of a continuous evolutionary spectrum, rather than atop a looming precipice.

The outdated view that we have been awarded special dominion over other life should be replaced by a humbler view, where our position of biological authority is tempered with respect.

Why has it taken so long for such findings to come to light? Centuries ago, anthropomorphism was commonplace and these experiments would have seemed like pointing out the obvious. But of late, biology has taken a more reductionist turn and signs of potential animal behaviour are scrutinised under the harshest and most sceptical light.

In many cases, this quite rightly avoids the false conclusions based on flimsy and anecdotal evidence. But while scientists have taken great care to ensure that their interpretations are not biased towards human perspectives, the same cannot always be said the design of the experiments themselves.

Looking for intelligence

One of the most significant problems with studying animal intelligence is that many species experience and react to the world in completely different ways to us. For example, to pass the classic test for self-awareness, an animal must show that it recognises itself in a mirror, by examining a mark previously made on its face (see right).

Gorillas and dogs tend to fail the mirror test, but not because they are mentally less advanced than successful examinees like elephants or chimps. Gorillas view direct eye contact is a sign of aggression and tend to avoid it, while dogs rely on smell as their primary sense, rather than sight.

Simply put, can we truly claim to understand the limits of another animal’s intelligence when we know so comparatively little about their behaviour or perceptions? Cleverly designed experiments may bring us closer to an answer, but sadly, we may never get the opportunity to conduct them.

Save ourselves, the most intelligent animals on the planet – the great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales – are mostly endangered, with many species facing a very real threat of extinction. Chimpanzees, like those in the Tai National Park are under threat from the loss of their habitat, and the illegal bushmeat trade.

A massive amount of evidence now paints these, our closest cousins, as sophisticated animals with their own culture. Imagine how tragic it would be if they died out for good, leaving only a set of shaped stones as the only lasting signs of their intelligence.

Reference: Mercader, Barton, Gillespie, Harris, Kuhn, Tyler & Boesch. 2007. 4,300-Year-old chimpanzee sites and the origins of percussive stone technology. PNAS 104: 3043-3048.