No abstract

No abstract

The methods by which dogs are trained vary between methods involving mainly negative reinforcement and positive punishment (aversive-based methods) and methods based essentially in positive reinforcement and negative punishment (reward-based methods). However, the use of aversive-based methods is highly controversial. While some people defend their merits, others are concerned with their potential negative effect on dog welfare. To date, some studies have been performed aiming to assess the effects of aversive-and reward-based methods on the welfare and behaviour of dogs. In the present paper we perform a comprehensive review of those studies with the aim of characterizing the state of the art of scientific knowledge of the topic. Generally, the published studies suggest that the use of aversive-based methods is correlated with indicators of compromised welfare in dogs, namely stress-related behaviours during training, elevated cortisol levels and problematic behaviours such as fear and aggression. However, there are a number of limitations that prevent any strong conclusion from being drawn. First, a considerable proportion of the studies relied upon surveys rather than on objective measures. Second, they focused on subpopulations of police and laboratory dogs and, thus, only represent a small portion of dogs undergoing training. Finally, the empirical studies have concentrated mainly on the effects of shock-collar training, which is only one of several tools used in aversive-based training, and, in some studies, the description of the training methodologies lacks details. Here we present a description of the published studies, discuss their limitations, debate other aspects that, in parallel with the nature of the training methods, may affect dog welfare, and point to future directions for research on the topic. Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/ A01/00 Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/ A01/00training and behaviour professionals and the policy makers with a comprehensive picture of the present scientific knowledge of the topic. METHODSAn advanced search was conducted on the ISI Web of Science® database with the query TS = "dog*" AND "train*" AND ("behavio$r*" OR "stress" OR "perform*" OR "health"). Results were refined to include original research articles, reviews, case reports, and reports written in English and Portuguese, published in journals of veterinary sciences, zoology, behavioural sciences, psychology, and anthropology. From the 913 references resulting from the search and after a triage (Fig. 1), we selected the art...

Dog training methods range broadly from those using mostly positive punishment and negative reinforcement (aversive-based) to those using primarily positive reinforcement (reward-based). Although aversive-based training has been strongly criticized for negatively affecting dog welfare, there is no comprehensive research focusing on companion dogs and mainstream techniques, and most studies rely on owner-reported assessment of training methods and dog behavior. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of aversive- and reward-based training methods on companion dog welfare within and outside the training context. Ninety-two companion dogs were recruited from three reward-based schools (Group Reward, n = 42), and from four aversive-based schools, two using low proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Mixed, n = 22) and two using high proportions of aversive-based methods (Group Aversive, n = 28). For evaluating welfare during training, dogs were video recorded for three sessions and six saliva samples were collected, three at home (baseline levels) and three after training (post-training levels). Video recordings were used to examine the frequency of stress-related behaviors (e.g., lip lick, yawn) and the overall behavioral state of the dog (e.g., tense, relaxed), and saliva samples were analyzed for cortisol concentration. For evaluating welfare outside the training context, dogs participated in a cognitive bias task. Results showed that dogs from Group Aversive displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense and low behavioral states and panted more during training, and exhibited higher post-training increases in cortisol levels than dogs from Group Reward. Additionally, dogs from Group Aversive were more ‘pessimistic’ in the cognitive bias task than dogs from Group Reward. Dogs from Group Mixed displayed more stress-related behaviors, were more frequently in tense states and panted more during training than dogs from Group Reward. Finally, although Groups Mixed and Aversive did not differ in their performance in the cognitive bias task nor in cortisol levels, the former displayed more stress-related behaviors and was more frequently in tense and low behavioral states. These findings indicate that aversive-based training methods, especially if used in high proportions, compromise the welfare of companion dogs both within and outside the training context.

No abstract

No abstract

In a temporal double bisection task, animals learn two discriminations. In the presence of Red and Green keys, responses to Red are reinforced after 1-s samples and responses to Green are reinforced after 4-s samples; in the presence of Blue and Yellow keys, responses to Blue are reinforced after 4-s samples and responses to Yellow are reinforced after 16-s samples. Subsequently, given a choice between Green and Blue, the probability of choosing Green increases with the sample duration-the context effect. In the present study we asked whether this effect could be predicted from the stimulus generalization gradients induced by the two basic discriminations. Six pigeons learned to peck Green following 4-s samples (S(+)) but not following 1-s samples (S(-)) and to peck Red following 4-s samples (S(+)) but not following 16-s samples (S(-)). Temporal generalization gradients for Green and Red were then obtained. Finally, the pigeons were given a choice between Green and Red following sample durations ranging from 1 to 16 s. Results showed that a) the two generalization gradients had the minimum at the S(-) duration, an intermediate value between the S(-) and the S(+) durations, and the maximum at the S(+) as well as more extreme durations; b) on choice trials, preference for Green over Red increased with sample duration, the context effect; and c) the two generalization gradients predicted the average context effect well. The Learning-to-Time model accounts for the major trends in the data.

The use of aversive-based training methods has been suggested to negatively affect dog-human attachment. However, the scientific evidence for this claim is relatively limited. Previous studies relied upon owner reports of training methods or on potentially confounded measures of attachment (e.g., eye gaze). The aim of the present study was to comprehensively and objectively investigate the relationship between aversive-and reward-based training methods and dog-owner attachment. Companion dogs (n=34) recruited from 6 different dog training schools (3 reward-based and 3 aversive-based) were given a counterbalanced version of the Ainsworth Strange Situation Test. The presence and absence of the owner and a stranger in a room with the dog was manipulated over different episodes. Dogs' behavior was then analyzed for attachment-related behaviors: contact-maintenance, separation-distress and secure-base effect, as well as following upon separation and greeting upon reunion. Results showed no significant differences between groups for contact-maintenance and separation distress behaviors. However, dogs trained with reward-based methods, but not dogs trained with aversive-based methods, played more in the presence of the owner than in the presence of the stranger, and they also followed and greeted the owner more than the stranger, although these differences were found for only one procedure order. Our study is the first to investigate the relationship between training methods and attachment using a standard and well-validated method for the assessment of dog-owner attachment.Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/ A01/00 Version: Postprint (identical content as published paper) This is a self-archived document from i3S -Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde in the University of Porto Open Repository For Open Access to more of our publications, please visit http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/