Positive Reinforcement Training for Laboratory Animals

Laule, Gail

doi:10.1002/9781444318777.ch16

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study may have some general implications for animal training methods, including in other species. For example, in line with our findings, training animals to perform desired responses using only positive reinforcement for procedures in laboratory and zoo situations has been shown to have considerable benefits for welfare 34 , 35 . Individual variation in sensitivity to rewarding and aversive stimuli may influence the appropriateness of different training approaches.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods

Casey

Naj-Oleari²,

Campbell³

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic dogs are trained using a range of different methods, broadly categorised as reward based (positive reinforcement/negative punishment) and aversive based (positive punishment/negative reinforcement). Previous research has suggested associations between use of positive punishment-based techniques and undesired behaviours, but there is little research investigating the relative welfare consequences of these different approaches. This study used a judgement bias task to compare the underlying mood state of dogs whose owners reported using two or more positive punishment/negative reinforcement based techniques, with those trained using only positive reinforcement/negative punishment in a matched pair study design. Dogs were trained to discriminate between rewarded and unrewarded locations equidistant from a start box, and mean latencies recorded. Their subsequent latency to intermediate ‘ambiguous’ locations was recorded as an indication of whether these were perceived as likely to contain food or not. Dogs trained using aversive methods were slower to all ambiguous locations. This difference was significant for latency to the middle (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.380, P = 0.017), and near positive (Wilcoxon Z = − 2.447, P = 0.014) locations, suggesting that dogs trained using coercive methods may have a more negative mood state, and hence that there are welfare implications of training dogs using such methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods

Casey

Naj-Oleari²,

Campbell³

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training programmes in zoos and other facilities may also involve other techniques, such as negative reinforcement training and punishment (reviewed in Prescott et al, 2005;Pryor, 1999). However, differently from other techniques, PRT, by using a positive reward, helps to establish a relaxed atmosphere in stressful contexts, giving animals the opportunity to choose and control the situation, with positive implications on their welfare (Lambeth et al, 2006;Laule, 2010;Laule et al, 2003;Laule & Whittaker, 2007;Pryor, 1999;Reinhardt, 1992). Similarly to environmental enrichment, PRT provides animals with choices and control over the environment, promotes species-specific behaviour, and allows the animals to cope better with new stimuli and challenges (Westlund, 2014(Westlund, , 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does positive reinforcement training affect the behaviour and welfare of zoo animals? The case of the ring-tailed lemur ( Lemur catta )

Spiezio

Vaglio

Scala

et al. 2017

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Positive reinforcement training (PRT) is an established tool to facilitate animal husbandry, care and research in modern zoos, with potential positive implications for captive animal welfare. The study explored the role of an isolation PRT training programme on the well-being of ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Eleven subjects were observed during an isolation training protocol to induce the animals to enter an area (training area) calmly and retrieve rewards separated from group members. Duration of individual and social behaviours were collected over two different periods: the baseline period, before the beginning of the isolation training protocol and the training period, in which the collection of the data started at the end of the isolation training sessions. Additionally, behavioural data within the isolation training sessions (latency to enter the training area and retrieve the reward, display of stress-related behaviours) were recorded. Outside the training sessions, lemurs were out of sight significantly more in the baseline (Mean ± SD: 15.46 ± 5.20) than in the training (Mean ± SD: 4.36 ± 2.89) period. Social behaviour was performed significantly more in the training (Mean ± SD: 31.80 ± 12.34) than in the baseline (Mean ± SD: 12.52 ± 5.14) period; particularly, lemurs were in social contact significantly more in the training (Mean ± SD: 14.09 ± 6.00) than in the baseline period (Mean ± SD: 4.58 ± 2.73). Agonistic behaviours were performed significantly more in the baseline (Mean ± SD: 0.23 ± 0.15) than in the training (Mean ± SD: 0.07 ± 0.07) period. Within the training sessions, all the individuals entered the training area, were isolated from conspecifics, and retrieved the reward in 6 out of 9 sessions. Our findings show that, during the PRT period, lemurs displayed their natural behaviour in their everyday social life with significant increase of their affiliative behaviours and decrease of aggressive behaviours with benefits for their welfare status. Thus, lemurs were able to cope with the use of PRT to isolate each individual from its social group − a situation which, without training, might be very stressful. In conclusion, PRT may play a crucial role for the captive management of ring-tailed lemurs in captive facilities, including zoos

show abstract

“…We chose to incorporate NRT in combination with consistent PRT counterconditioning. It is worth mentioning that techniques incorporating NRT have been suggested to be considered only a last opportunity as these techniques have the potential to be detrimental [28, 34, 38]: the primary concern raised with NRT or ERP is the elicitation of anxiety or stress in animals, a valid concern, particularly in the absence of counterconditioning. However, transient stressors are not unequivocally detrimental.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Successful implementation of cooperative handling eliminates the need for restraint in a complex non‐human primate disease model

Graham¹,

Rieke²,

Mutch

et al. 2011

J of Medical Primatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Streptozotocin-induced diabetic nonhuman primates are used to study efficacy and safety of innovative immunosuppression after islet transplantation. We implemented a training program for medical management of a chronic disease state. Methods Cooperation with hand feeding and drinking; shifting; and limb presentation were trained utilizing predominately positive but also negative reinforcement in 52 animals compared with 28 macaques subjected to conventional physical and/or chemical restraint. The success of and timing of behavior acquisition was evaluated in a representative subset of 14 animals. Results Over 90% of animals were successful in behavior acquisition. Programmatically this resulted in complete elimination of chair restraint and negligible requirement for sedation. About half of trained animals had no to moderate thymic involution, indicative of a substantial reduction in stress. Conclusion Cooperative handling enhances animal well-being. This contributes to validity of scientific results and eliminates model-induced confounding that can obstruct interpretation of safety and efficacy data.

show abstract

Positive Reinforcement Training for Laboratory Animals

Cited by 13 publications

References 55 publications

Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods

Dogs are more pessimistic if their owners use two or more aversive training methods

Does positive reinforcement training affect the behaviour and welfare of zoo animals? The case of the ring-tailed lemur ( Lemur catta )

Successful implementation of cooperative handling eliminates the need for restraint in a complex non‐human primate disease model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About