…But he does it perfectly at
home.
RETRIEVAL CUES AND CANINE LEARNING: PART 2
Debby Boehm
Cues Part I explored
retrieval cues, what they are and how they work. Examples illustrated their impact on the learning/performance
process. Part II continues to address their cue actions in learning, confusion,
corrections, and proofing.
In Part I we learned that any
additional information encoded with the main learning may become retrieval
cues. They contain information about
the context and mental and biological states present when learning
occurred. They may include: handler
presence and proximity, training collars or equipment, teaching location,
verbiage (including the command words), attitude and expressions, corrections,
presence of rewards, etc. They function
reciprocally, accessing main learning which, in turn, accesses memories of the
additional information. Retrieval or remembering of learned information is best
when the performance and learning situations are the same.
During the initial teaching
process, many encoded cues of additional information are needed to remember the
desired learning.
Example:
Food
is used to guide (lure) the dog into the down position. Some of the cues
encoded might be: food, hand motion, handler presence and proximity, training
collar or equipment, teaching location, verbiage (including the command words),
attitude and expressions.
Pet owners may be happy to
continue to produce all these cues to elicit the correct response, but dog
sport competitors drop out cues so a verbal and/or signal command will access
down learning. Dog handlers also train in different locations to add cues so
learning is accessed / remembered in a variety of situations.
Incidentally, the phenomenon
of encoding the contextual cue of the dog’s proximity to the handler is
profoundly illustrated when teaching the drop on recall. Dogs taught as
described in the example above show a marked preference to drop in close
proximity to the handler.
When cues access incorrect or
stressful learning, it is efficient to retrain, changing as many cues as possible
when teaching the desired new learning.
Change commands, location, rewards, technique, moods, etc., so cues that
access (remember) the new learning are separate and distinct from those that
access the old learning. Understand
that using cues that access old learning when teaching new will access the
undesired learning along with the new.
If cues are missing,
incomplete, competing or conflicting, access to the desired learning is
disrupted resulting in partial, wrong or nonperformance. Performance is a
function of access to the correct learning. The following examples illustrate
some retrieval cue effects on remembering.
Dogs may not access correct
main learning because of similar or confusing contextual cues.
Example:
Signal
and directed jumping exercises have very similar cues: ring setup, dog’s
position in the ring, handler’s position relative to the dog, and the use of
signals. These similarities cause
confusion in inexperienced dogs’ because the main learning for both exercises
is encoded with many of the same cues.
Dogs may not access correct
main learning because of missing cues.
Example: A dog learned
to go out to baby gates (directed jumping exercise), but is now asked to go out
to a pole. The contextual cue of the baby gates accesses the go-out learning
but that cue is not present. Since the
dog has not learned to go to a pole, this cue is not encoded with the correct
information. The dog may look confused,
and may fail to go out.
Dogs may not access correct
main learning because cues were unnoticed:
Example: Because of a
loud commotion, your dog does not see or hear the dumbbell toss during the high
jump exercise. The dumbbell lands behind the jump and out of view. When sent,
he may fail to go because cues that access to information to retrieve the
dumbbell (presence and toss of the object) are missing.
Dogs may not access correct
main learning because of partial or inconsistent retrieval cues.
Example: The handler
gives the recall command too quickly after the judge’s order. Instead of the usual distinct command from
his handler, the dog hears two voices, “Call your dogfluffy come”, with no
break between the judge’s order and the handler’s command. This cue is not
consistent with cues that access correct learning. He may prick his ears, rock forward, or even start to get up, but
his confusion is evident.
Often, corrections are used
to (fix) training problems like those in the examples above. Aversive collar pops, shocks, and
manhandling are some corrections used for wrong, partial or nonperformance, and
to motivate the correct response. Some dogs are trained exclusively with
correction. It is expected that by avoiding areas of correction the dog learns
the desired response. Unfortunately, a
response that avoided one correction may be completely different from the
response necessary to avoid the next one.
Corrections are intended to
mean many different things in many different contexts: too wide, too slow
(lagging), too fast (forging), too close (bumping), stop/sit, start, go,
retrieve, etc. In reality, correction indicates only that what the dog is doing
results in discomfort, and should be avoided.
Corrections are single aversive retrieval cues, accessing learning of what/who/where
to avoid, and they occur when the dog’s response or non-response is incorrect.
Corrections do not make missing cues appear, partial cues complete, or indicate
which competing cues need attending to.
Aversives do not convey any information regarding the desired response,
unless that response is avoidance.
Dogs may not access desired
learning because the cue presented was not encoded with the desired learning:
Example: A dog learns to
sit in response to “sit”. He is now commanded “platz” (German “sit”). No
surprise; the dog does not sit.
In the above example it is
easy to predict that the dog will not respond correctly. We don’t expect that he will understand that
“platz” means sit, --easily perceiving that “platz” does not access the desired
learning because it was not present to be encoded with sit learning. Yet,
corrections are used in the same way as the ‘platz”, word. Undefined and bewildering cues delivered
with the intention of accessing desired learning when, in fact, they have no access.
Example
of corrective heelwork training: With the dog sitting, the handler steps into
position, commands, “heel”, and starts off.
The dog fails to move, so he is corrected. The jerk on the collar only conveys information that sitting
(next to the handler) is wrong. After a
few steps, the handler decides to halt: the dog keeps going and is again
corrected.
The first correction
(starting off) was intended to indicate that the dog should go forward, but the
correction actually encodes information that sitting next to the handler has
unpleasant consequences and should be avoided.
It does not convey what the correct response should be. At the halt, the
intended meaning of the second correction is to stop and sit. In reality, it
conveys only information indicating that continuing forward is wrong. The dog
has received only corrective input accessing information about where/what to
avoid, not what response is correct.
Furthermore, if this dog
tries to avoid the next correction by responding in a way that avoided the
previous one, he will not be successful.
Usually, his efforts are not understood or rewarded. In fact, they
result in another correction. As the
cycle continues, the dog is subjected to cues (close proximity to the handler,
arm and leg movements, collar and leash, verbiage, training context, and
correction) that access learning of who/what/where to avoid.
Correction for being wrong is
not the same as showing the dog how to be right. The dog may react to
correction in a way that mimics the desired response. Reacting to “heel”, the
dog moves forward to avoid correction (the desired response), but learning
encoded by the aversive is to avoid sitting next to the handler when certain
cues (like movement of the left leg and corrective arm) are present. Heelwork taught by correction encodes
learning to avoid all areas outside of heel position. Unfortunately,
corrections given when the dog fails to move on “heel” or stop and sit on
“halt” encode avoidance of heel position.
This is quite different from reinforcing and teaching directly the
desired response in heelwork: synchronized movements with the handler, holding
position to the left leg regardless of speed or direction. In that scenario,
cues presented access the desired learning.
Training and learning through
a corrective/aversive process is complex.
Since corrections only indicate information about what is wrong, dogs
must develop strategies that result in behaviors that avoid correction. Like
us, they guess. They sort through cues to determine which are predictors of
correction, and then guess at responses which may or may not result in
correction. Guessing and performing
behaviors that may result in correction are risky, and stressful. Learning is not efficient and may encode unpleasant
/ stressful-state cues.
Some dogs guess well, but
others guess badly and are frequently wrong.
When repeated wrong responses are corrected, information that responding
is wrong and should be avoided is learned. Responding may diminish or cease entirely. Confused and frustrated, dogs quit trying.
Example of
guessing strategy we humans can relate to: A youngster is given information
indicating a wrong answer, such as 5 times 7 is NOT equal to 12, and asked to
respond with the correct answer. .He doesn’t know, so he guesses. He may guess
(incorrectly) many times in an attempt to come up with the right answer. So
many times, in fact, that he may get frustrated and give up. Incidentally, even if he does guess the
correct answer, he still doesn’t know how to solve the problem.
Some
dogs are able to work their way through the maze of cues and responses to
“master” this convoluted task, yet others’ dismal performance and dejected
attitude indicate this is well beyond their grasp. Corrections demoralize and de-motivate a dog who is trying his
best to figure out what is right when he is only receiving information about
what is wrong.
Even during shaping,
where correct responses are rewarded and incorrect responses are not rewarded,
repeated wrong guesses can result in frustration, confusion and inhibited or
diminished responding. Frustration and diminished responding can occur even
when no aversives are applied.
Corrections
draw the dog’s focus to the who/what/where that produce/cause correction. This
includes information about training context and equipment, presence and
proximity of the handler, and the mental and biological state of the dog and
handler during learning. At first, it would seem that more intense focus would
be desirable. However, this type of attention is directed to predict and avoid
correction. The problem (avoiding correction) requires an immediate solution,
(the dog wants the corrections to stop). Some dogs even guess that biting the
handler might be a response to achieve this goal.
Correction
for wrong or nonperformance from a positively reinforced dog has the same
action and result. Correction: collar pop, physical correction, or verbal “no”,
indicates only that what the dog is doing/about to do is incorrect. Because
correction was not part of the teaching process, it does not convey any
information about how to be correct.
The dog must guess (correctly) or be redirected verbally or
physically. In this case, avoidance
learning with cues of context and state are encoded.
Proofing
as defined for use in this article is the process of altering the teaching
context with the addition of distractions (competing cues) to achieve reliable
performance. The goal is to teach the
dog that the requested behavior must maintain priority and be performed even
though there is a very interesting distraction, one that may even act as a
retrieval cue for a different behavior.
At
first, it may appear that the easiest solution is to correct the dog for
wrongly going to the distraction, to cause the dog to avoid it. Correction is
the method of choice for aversion training. But closer analysis indicates
correction may not provide the best result. Ignoring and avoiding are not the
same as focus on the exercise. In fact, these processes compete for limited
cognitive resources. Active avoidance
(ignoring) and attention both use cognitive resources. When used to actively avoid, fewer cognitive
resources are available to focus attention on the exercise.
Example: A
training situation is “set up” with a distractor (empty bag, toy, whatever)
placed in proximity to the thrown dumbbell. When sent for the dumbbell, the dog
goes, but notices the distraction and investigates, resulting in correction and
avoidance. On the next retrieve, the
dog makes a wide arc, avoiding the distraction. By using so many resources to
avoid the distraction, he may be unable to access desired learning necessary to
complete the retrieve.
Proofing
(like initial teaching) is the process of sorting through cues to determine
which require response and which should be disregarded.
Retrieval
cues that access desired learning make correct performance possible. Missing, partial, and conflicting cues
result in disrupted access and performance.
Indicating wrongness is not the same as reinforcing the dog for being
right. Avoiding distraction is not the same as focus on the exercise. And
presenting cues that access only information about who/what/where to avoid is
not the same as presenting cues that access desired learning. Careful teaching so desired learning is
clearly accessed will help your dog perform perfectly beyond the confines of
your own home.
Copyright
Debby Boehm. DO NOT REPRINT WITHOUT
PERMISSION.