Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs

Vicars, Sara M.; Miguel, Caio F.; Sobie, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.006

Cited by 35 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…touching or pushing various stimuli) in giant pandas ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) and African elephants (Loxodonta Africana ). Similarly, Vicars et al (2014) found that items identified as highly preferred by a paired-choice task in domestic dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris ) subsequently served as effective reinforcers in a progressive ratio procedure in which the task was touching the experimenter’s fist with the dog’s nose. However, it is unknown whether items identified by preference techniques will translate to faster learning or more efficient training sessions when training animals for more complex tasks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Fisher et al (1992) found that this forcedchoice procedure resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and also was a better predictor of which stimuli would subsequently serve as effective reinforcers. Paired-choice procedures are widely used to determine food, toy, or activity preferences in humans with developmental disorders (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2001; Fisher et al, 1992; Piazza et al, 1996) and have also been used to determine food preferences for a variety of animal species, ranging from great apes to possums (e.g., Benz et al, 1992; Cameron et al, 2013; Clay et al, 2009; Fernandez et al, 2004; Gaalema et al, 2011; Harlow & Myer, 1952; Mehrkam & Dorey, 2014; 2015; Polidora & Schneider, 1964; Remis, 2000; Vicars et al, 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results of the progressive ratio schedules generally support findings of other types of stimulus assessments. Stimuli identified as highly preferred through preference assessments (e.g., paired-choice procedures) have subsequently been shown to maintain higher rates of responding under increasing progressive ratio schedule requirements than items that were considered less preferred in both human and non-human populations (Cameron et al, 2015; Cameron et al, 2016; DeLeon et al, 2009; Hutson & van Mourik, 1981; Kennedy & Baldwin, 1972; Penrod et al, 2008; Vicars et al, 2014). Furthermore, progressive ratio assessments have been beneficial in showing differential responding with stimuli that may appear equally preferred in a preference assessment (Roane et al, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques

Martin

Franklin

Perlman

et al. 2018

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of systematic preference assessments can enhance positive reinforcement training with captive animals. We found that the multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) technique identified food preferences in laboratory housed rhesus macaques, with raisins and grapes being ranked higher on average than dried apricot, pasta, and green beans (Friedman Test, χ2 (4) = 35.52, p < .001). Agreement between individuals (N = 21) was moderate (Kendall’s W = .42), and consistency across time varied among individuals (W = .03 to .90). Highly preferred items identified by the MSWO assessment were subsequently found to increase subjects’ engagement in a husbandry task on which they were being trained (Mann-Whitney U = 6.00, p = .002) and to improve performance on a progressive ratio schedule (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Z = −2.17, p = .03) when compared with low preference items. The progressive ratio technique supplements other preference assessment techniques by measuring the amount of work a subject will do to gain access to an item. The use of more effective reinforcers identified through systematic assessment has the potential to increase animal performance on husbandry and research tasks and to improve animal welfare in the laboratory setting.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques

Martin

Franklin

Perlman

et al. 2018

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, rewarding desired behaviour is reported to strengthen the human-animal bond (Deldalle and Gaunet 2014;Payne, Bennett and McGreevy 2015), decrease animal stress during training (Deldalle and Gaunet 2014) and mitigate the development of problematic behaviour which can result in relinquishment of the dog by the owner if it persists (Blackwell, Twells, Seawright and Casey 2008). To successfully implement positive reinforcement, one must use a functional reinforcer; this means that the reinforcer is highly valued by the animal (Gaalema, Perdue and Kelling 2011;Vicars, Miguel and Sobie 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A well-researched method used for assessing preference with animals is the paired stimulus preference assessment (e.g., Cameron et al 2013;Clay et al 2009) as it requires little effort on the part of the researcher, does not involve large amounts of food and is relatively quick to administer (Vicars et al 2014;Riemer et al 2018;). It is also a valid and reliable method for assessing preference and involves pairs of food or items being systematically offered to the subject with their choice recorded (Fisher et al 1992) and is reliable over time (e.g., Cameron et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Food Preference Predicts Speed of Approach on a Runway Task by Dogs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effective and quick assessment of food preference is important when attempting to identify foods that might function as effective reinforcers in dogs. In the current experiment a food preference assessment was conducted where more highly preferred foods were expected to be associated with faster approaches in a subsequent runway task. Eight dogs were tested in a paired preference assessment offering combinations of two of six types of raw food, including the dog’s staple diet, to identify a rank order of preference for the foods. A different raw food was offered as the staple in two preference tests. The results showed that the staple foods were not preferred as highly as the other foods and that each dog displayed unique and stable preferences for the different foods. In the runway task the dogs were required to walk five metres to obtain a small amount of their most preferred, least preferred or staple foods and latency of approach to the foods was recorded. The approach latencies were faster for their most preferred food compared to their least preferred and the staple foods. The use of a runway to assess reinforcer effectiveness combined an effortful behaviour to obtain food while also requiring the dogs to make a choice, thus precluding the need for more complicated and time-consuming methods of preference assessment. The application of this method for fast and effective identification of preferred reinforcers is currently being investigating further to inform pet owners of simple methods to increase their training successes. Owners of raw food fed dogs are advised to conduct a preference assessment to identify their dogs most preferred food for use as a reinforcer during training.

show abstract

Reinforcer efficacy of grain for horses

Platzer¹,

Feuerbacher²

2022

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive reinforcement is becoming more common in horse training. Identifying effective reinforcers is critical for training success. The aim of this study was to determine relative reinforcer efficacy of different grains. Four horses learned to muzzle touch a target, after which they were tested using a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement with different grains as the consequence. Break points were used to determine relative reinforcer efficacy of each grain and were also converted into unit price per kilocalorie to determine if caloric value impacted reinforcer efficacy. Condition 1 compared three textured grains that spanned industry-accepted standards of low to high nonstructural carbohydrate content. Condition 2 compared three pelleted grains that similarly differed in nonstructural carbohydrate content, comparable to Condition 1, but that had a different texture than those of Condition 1. Finally, Condition 3 directly compared one grain each from Conditions 1 and 2. Results showed overall little difference in reinforcer efficacy or unit price between grains but found that all grains tested functioned as reinforcers for the horses. This suggests that a range of commercially available grains can maintain behavior and therefore be used for training. We also identified possible extraexperimental factors that impact reinforcer efficacy.

show abstract

Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques

Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques

Food Preference Predicts Speed of Approach on a Runway Task by Dogs

Reinforcer efficacy of grain for horses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About