Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Re-check with the Veterinary Behaviorist
Maisy had her eight week re-check with Dr. Duxbury, her board-certified veterinary behaviorist, on Monday. This appointment lasted longer than I expected- almost two hours- and we reviewed the behavior logs and the charting that I had done. We also discussed my general observations, as well as my goals and hopes for Maisy. I guess I still don’t know if Maisy’s response has been “typical,” but Dr. Duxbury did say that for most people, the level of improvement we’ve seen in Maisy is “enough.”
I don’t want to undermine Maisy’s progress- it’s been phenomenal, and I’m thrilled. In fact, Maisy was incredible in the exam room yesterday. At our first appointment, Maisy alternately paced and sought out interaction. She settled only when I asked her to, and it was very clearly an operant behavior, not a truly relaxed one.
This time around, Maisy was much calmer. She spent most of the time on her mat, and she had a very soft, heavy-lidded look to her eyes. Incidentally, I’ve heard people talk about this look on email lists before, but never really understood what they meant. Now I do, and I must have pointed it out to Dr. Duxbury half a dozen times because I was so amazed. Although she did get up from time to time, her body movements were soft and fluid instead of quick and frantic. She wasn’t pacing so much as she was bored. She was truly a different dog. Dr. Duxbury even said that she wished she’d taken video at Maisy’s initial consult!
With that said, I want more progress. Maybe that makes me greedy, I don’t know, but like Dr. Duxbury said, we won’t know how much more is possible without trying. She certainly didn’t seem to think I was being unreasonable, and I completely trust that she would say something if I was.
We discussed my goals for Maisy. Dr. Duxbury wasn’t surprised that Maisy had a hard time when we were at my parent’s house, but she was a bit concerned by how long it took Maisy to recover. (I actually feel like a three to four day recovery period is a big improvement for her, but I don’t have any data to back that up.) We agreed that a short-acting, as needed medication is probably in Maisy’s best interest. We discussed both trazodone, which is a serotonin modulator, and alprazolam (Xanax), which is a benzodiazepine. Since we don’t have any big events planned for several months, we decided to wait until we’ve decided what to do with her routine meds.
Because I want to see the number of anxiety-provoked reactions around the house reduced from the current average of two per day to something like three or four per week, we agreed to increase Maisy’s paroxetine. Currently, she’s on 8mg (1mg/kilo of body weight), and we decided to increase it to 10mg (1.25mg/kilo). I will continue to keep intermittent behavior logs, and we’ll consult again in four to six weeks. At that time, we’ll discuss increasing to a max of 12mg (1.5mg/kilo) and/or adding a second medication (probably clonidine, a centrally acting alpha-agonist).
Speaking of behavior logs, I totally got a gold star. I’m glad they were useful, because they are an awful lot of work. Honestly, I’m not looking forward to doing more of them, but I can’t deny their importance. Dr. Duxbury’s student analyzed them for patterns (she thought maybe Maisy was having a series of lower-intensity behaviors that culminated in a high-intensity one, but that theory didn’t pan out). We also discussed the fact that some of the stimuli that Maisy is reacting to is reasonable- for example, someone at the door- while some of it isn’t. My new task is to start coding my logs in an effort to pinpoint which type of stimulus is causing most of her reactions.
I will also start doing some desensitization and counter-conditioning around the house. I decided to focus primarily on interactions with the cats, mostly in an effort to help reduce the stress in their lives, too. Dr. Duxbury also recommended giving a treat when Maisy startles but doesn’t go over the top. Obviously, being consistent with this will yield the best results, so I’m going to have to pay close attention to what’s going on. I will also need to have treats close by, which may result in my being mugged for a few days. This could be interesting!
Like I said, it was a great appointment, and I was absolutely thrilled with the professionalism, respect and attention we received. Seriously, if anyone in the area needs a vet behaviorist, I can’t recommend Dr. Duxbury enough.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Ian Dunbar Seminar: Punishment, the Dog-Con System, and the Concept Formerly Known as Instructive Reprimands
Punishment is a hot button issue in dog training, and like every other trainer, Ian Dunbar has ideas about how punishment should (or shouldn’t) be used. However, he has unique ideas regarding behavior and misbehavior, ones I’d never heard before, so I can’t wait to share them with you.
But first, a definition: “punishment” is any consequence that reduces behavior. Therefore, a consequence cannot be considered punishment unless the trainer actually uses fewer as training goes on. This means that, for the average pet owner, most “punishments” are simply consequences which are painful, fear-inducing, or annoying… and completely ineffective! (I imagine they’re also confusing because the dog doesn’t understand why those unpleasant things are happening.)
The use of punishment in training is a difficult skill to master. To be done well, punishment must be immediate so the dog needs to know why he’s being punished. It must be consistent and happen every time the misbehavior does. It must fit the crime- serious enough that the dog wants to avoid it, but not so intense that it’s abusive. There should be a warning first, so the dog can avoid the punishment by changing his behavior. The dog must know what is expected of him, and if he fails, Ian says that the punishment the dog receives should instruct him on what to do instead.
This last point is interesting, and Ian contends that it’s often overlooked. I think he’s right. After all, whether it’s a collar correction for leash pulling or a time-out for playing too rough, most punishments only tell the dog which behavior was wrong, but do nothing to help the dog figure out what the correct response was. They don’t instruct the dog, and Ian believes that punishment can and should be instructive. He accomplishes this by using his voice, which allows him to use his language, feelings, and creativity in training to help the dog understand both how important it is to respond as well as providing consequences if the dog doesn’t.
He starts by letting the dog know if and when he ought to respond to a command through his “Dog-con” system, which basically formalizes when the dog may disobey. He created this system since he believes that it is rare that a person needs absolute reliability from their dogs.
The Dog-con system has three stages, each using a different version of the dog’s name prior to issuing a command. At Dog-con 1, Ian uses a dog’s nickname or a term of endearment to indicate that the command is more of a suggestion: “Hey, Huey, you wanna sit? No? Eh, whatever.” At Dog-con 2, Ian uses the dog’s real name to indicate that he expects the dog to respond. “Hubert, sit.” Dog-con 3 uses the dog’s full, formal name, and indicates that it’s show time; the dog ought to pull out his flashiest performance. “Hubert Lewis, sit!”
This concept absolutely hurt my brain when I first heard it, because when I give a cue, it’s generally because I want Maisy to do it. It took me awhile to figure out that there are times when I don’t really mean it. As it turns out, I use different cue words instead of prefacing the same word with different versions of her name. For example, whereas “come!” means “get your butt over here right now,” the variant “come on” means “when you’re ready, please head this way.” I didn’t set out to teach it this way- if I had, I would have chosen more distinct phrases- but Maisy and I both seem to understand the difference. So, I guess Ian and I are doing similar things, just in different ways.
Ian thinks 100% reliability on the first cue is impossible. Whether your dog is distracted or simply has better things to do, there isn’t a dog alive who will be perfect, even at Dog-con 2 or 3. However, instead of applying a punishment that causes pain or fear- things that are unnecessary in training- Ian uses his voice to get the dog to do what he wants. He does this using a method called repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement (RRNR). (Scientifically-minded readers will undoubtedly notice that the method is technically not punishment, a fact which Ian both acknowledged and dismissed by saying we shouldn’t get hung up on terminology. He said that the distinction is too fine to really matter.)
RRNR is actually pretty simple to implement. If the dog fails to respond, Ian continuously repeats the command until the dog complies. If the dog is at a distance, he will move closer to the dog as he repeats himself. If the dog was distracted, this helps bring the command to the dog’s consciousness, and if the dog simply chose not to respond, this lets him know that Ian was serious. Either way, once the dog has finally performed the cue, Ian will repeat the exercise until the dog responds on the first request, and then reward the dog.
Although many trainers worry that repeated cues will result in learned irrelevance, Ian doesn’t. He argues that if the dog fails to respond, the cue is already irrelevant in that moment, and you can’t make something more irrelevant. Besides, Ian makes sure that the dog does respond eventually, which means the dog will learn that the cue must be followed.
While RRNR helps instruct the dog when he fails to comply, it doesn’t work when the dog is trying but gets it wrong. When this happens, Ian will use a “specific redirection,” which tells the dog what he ought to be doing. For example, if the dog is jumping up, you tell him to sit. If the dog is lagging or forging at heel, you can tell him to “hurry” or “slow down.”
It sounds like this works well for him, but I (and others at the seminar) are concerned about doing this since cues can act as a reinforcer, which would mean you’re actually rewarding the very behavior you’re trying to punish. When someone asked him about this, Ian seemed confused, so clearly he hasn’t had this happen. Either we misunderstood how and when he uses specific redirections, or the cues Ian uses don’t have a strong enough reinforcement history for them to act as reinforcers.
At any rate, while I agreed with Ian’s feelings on punishment- it doesn’t need to hurt or scare a dog- and I felt confused by the rest. But maybe that’s just me. What do you guys think? Have you tried RRNR or specific redirection? What’s your experience been? Do you do something else entirely? I’ll be curious to hear what you think!
But first, a definition: “punishment” is any consequence that reduces behavior. Therefore, a consequence cannot be considered punishment unless the trainer actually uses fewer as training goes on. This means that, for the average pet owner, most “punishments” are simply consequences which are painful, fear-inducing, or annoying… and completely ineffective! (I imagine they’re also confusing because the dog doesn’t understand why those unpleasant things are happening.)
The use of punishment in training is a difficult skill to master. To be done well, punishment must be immediate so the dog needs to know why he’s being punished. It must be consistent and happen every time the misbehavior does. It must fit the crime- serious enough that the dog wants to avoid it, but not so intense that it’s abusive. There should be a warning first, so the dog can avoid the punishment by changing his behavior. The dog must know what is expected of him, and if he fails, Ian says that the punishment the dog receives should instruct him on what to do instead.
This last point is interesting, and Ian contends that it’s often overlooked. I think he’s right. After all, whether it’s a collar correction for leash pulling or a time-out for playing too rough, most punishments only tell the dog which behavior was wrong, but do nothing to help the dog figure out what the correct response was. They don’t instruct the dog, and Ian believes that punishment can and should be instructive. He accomplishes this by using his voice, which allows him to use his language, feelings, and creativity in training to help the dog understand both how important it is to respond as well as providing consequences if the dog doesn’t.
He starts by letting the dog know if and when he ought to respond to a command through his “Dog-con” system, which basically formalizes when the dog may disobey. He created this system since he believes that it is rare that a person needs absolute reliability from their dogs.
The Dog-con system has three stages, each using a different version of the dog’s name prior to issuing a command. At Dog-con 1, Ian uses a dog’s nickname or a term of endearment to indicate that the command is more of a suggestion: “Hey, Huey, you wanna sit? No? Eh, whatever.” At Dog-con 2, Ian uses the dog’s real name to indicate that he expects the dog to respond. “Hubert, sit.” Dog-con 3 uses the dog’s full, formal name, and indicates that it’s show time; the dog ought to pull out his flashiest performance. “Hubert Lewis, sit!”
This concept absolutely hurt my brain when I first heard it, because when I give a cue, it’s generally because I want Maisy to do it. It took me awhile to figure out that there are times when I don’t really mean it. As it turns out, I use different cue words instead of prefacing the same word with different versions of her name. For example, whereas “come!” means “get your butt over here right now,” the variant “come on” means “when you’re ready, please head this way.” I didn’t set out to teach it this way- if I had, I would have chosen more distinct phrases- but Maisy and I both seem to understand the difference. So, I guess Ian and I are doing similar things, just in different ways.
Ian thinks 100% reliability on the first cue is impossible. Whether your dog is distracted or simply has better things to do, there isn’t a dog alive who will be perfect, even at Dog-con 2 or 3. However, instead of applying a punishment that causes pain or fear- things that are unnecessary in training- Ian uses his voice to get the dog to do what he wants. He does this using a method called repetitive reinstruction as negative reinforcement (RRNR). (Scientifically-minded readers will undoubtedly notice that the method is technically not punishment, a fact which Ian both acknowledged and dismissed by saying we shouldn’t get hung up on terminology. He said that the distinction is too fine to really matter.)
RRNR is actually pretty simple to implement. If the dog fails to respond, Ian continuously repeats the command until the dog complies. If the dog is at a distance, he will move closer to the dog as he repeats himself. If the dog was distracted, this helps bring the command to the dog’s consciousness, and if the dog simply chose not to respond, this lets him know that Ian was serious. Either way, once the dog has finally performed the cue, Ian will repeat the exercise until the dog responds on the first request, and then reward the dog.
Although many trainers worry that repeated cues will result in learned irrelevance, Ian doesn’t. He argues that if the dog fails to respond, the cue is already irrelevant in that moment, and you can’t make something more irrelevant. Besides, Ian makes sure that the dog does respond eventually, which means the dog will learn that the cue must be followed.
While RRNR helps instruct the dog when he fails to comply, it doesn’t work when the dog is trying but gets it wrong. When this happens, Ian will use a “specific redirection,” which tells the dog what he ought to be doing. For example, if the dog is jumping up, you tell him to sit. If the dog is lagging or forging at heel, you can tell him to “hurry” or “slow down.”
It sounds like this works well for him, but I (and others at the seminar) are concerned about doing this since cues can act as a reinforcer, which would mean you’re actually rewarding the very behavior you’re trying to punish. When someone asked him about this, Ian seemed confused, so clearly he hasn’t had this happen. Either we misunderstood how and when he uses specific redirections, or the cues Ian uses don’t have a strong enough reinforcement history for them to act as reinforcers.
At any rate, while I agreed with Ian’s feelings on punishment- it doesn’t need to hurt or scare a dog- and I felt confused by the rest. But maybe that’s just me. What do you guys think? Have you tried RRNR or specific redirection? What’s your experience been? Do you do something else entirely? I’ll be curious to hear what you think!
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Behavior Logs- Chart
Because I'm a geek, I made a spreadsheet summarizing the behavior logs I've been keeping on Maisy. Because some of you are geeks, I'm sharing it. Click the picture to embiggen so you can read it.
First, it has to be said: I know that the data isn't perfect. Taking data for only two days may or may not be accurate. Also, the categories in the chart above are completely arbitrary (and also retrospective); when I first started keeping the logs, I had no idea what to look for. For example, since I didn't know eight weeks ago that I'd be interested in the duration of each behavior, I didn't write down start and stop times. Still, my logs were fairly detailed, so I think the data in the chart is close, although not perfect.
Also, you'll see that there are two columns for seven weeks. The first is the first four days after we arrived home from Thanksgiving. I've written before that Maisy has a fairly long stress recovery period, and that was evident here. The second column reflects the data after she seemed to have recovered, although it's possible that there were still some residual stress hormones in her body.
With that said, here are my thoughts. Feel free to chime in with your own.
Number of Incidents
Overall, the trend is downwards, although she was actually above the baseline during the stress recovery period. She's still having approximately two incidents per day where she startles or overreacts to minor or undetectable stimuli in the environment. This number is higher than I'd like, and although I'm not sure what's reasonable to expect, I'd like to see it at more like 3-4 times a week.
Time of Day
I included this because a third of all the incidents during the baseline happened overnight. The number has gone down significantly, which I hope indicates she's sleeping sounder.
Vocalization Type
I'm really not sure what to make of the data here. About the only conclusion I can draw is that she growls less and, at least while recovering from stress, barking more. Possibly more of her incidents are silent, although the last column sort of undermines that conclusion.
Duration
As I already noted, I didn't track duration, although my notes were pretty good. The number of incidents lasting longer than one minute have been reduced by approximately half.
Leaving the Room and Vigilance
These two categories are very similar. Any time an incident included a notation about scanning the environment, I counted it as "vigilance." This has dropped off dramatically, from 30% of all incidents to 0%. (And only 7% during the recovery period!) This is a huge improvement! Leaving the room is probably related to vigilance, but often, I couldn't see what she was doing when she went to a different room, so I listed it in a separate category. The data shows that she's leaving the room far less often, contributing to my conclusion that she's less vigilant these days.
Intensity
This is a completely subjective measure, and retrospective, so take it with a grain of salt. Basically, if I read over a notation and thought it sounded worse than usual, I counted it as high intensity. This is probably the least accurate metric, and it also hasn't really changed. I'm not sure if that's because she's still having large explosions, or if it's because she's mellowed out so much that incidents that might have only been at a medium level during the baseline now seem high intensity to me.
Sample Notations
Baseline:
Maisy was napping. My stomach growled. Maisy jumped up, growled briefly, then trotted into the kitchen, looking around.
We were lying in bed, just on the verge of falling asleep. Maisy suddenly lifted her head and growled for approximately 20 seconds, then "wuffed" several times. She went into the kitchen, looked around for a moment, then ran towards the back door while barking.
Two Weeks:
We were in the kitchen, playing ball. The wind howled outside, and Maisy rushed toward the back door growling. Then she returned to me.
We were sitting on the couch together. I called out to Brian, who was in the other room. Maisy jumped up, startled, then lay down again.
Four Weeks:
We were sitting in the living room, and one of the cats were in the front room. Maisy made a single, soft "wuff."
We were in the living room on the couch. I accidentally "dinged" a glass, and Maisy barked, then trotted around the room for approximately 90 seconds, looking in both the kitchen and at the front door before settling down again.
Six Weeks:
Maisy and I were sitting together, and Brian giggled at something he read. Maisy jumped up, rushed towards Brian, and sat next to him.
Maisy was chewing on a rawhide, then suddenly stood, "wuffed" softly, and let out a short, low growl towards the front door.
Seven Weeks, Recovery Period:
Maisy was lying on the bedroom floor. Brian was in the other room, and when he shifted, his chair made a creaking sound. Maisy jumped up and let out a single bark.
Seven Weeks, Post-Recovery:
Maisy was eating out of a food-toy. I shifted my foot and it made a cracking noise. Maisy jumped up, and rushed approximately one foot away with her tail tucked. She barked three or four times as she did this, then looked around for about five seconds before she let out two small "wuffs."
First, it has to be said: I know that the data isn't perfect. Taking data for only two days may or may not be accurate. Also, the categories in the chart above are completely arbitrary (and also retrospective); when I first started keeping the logs, I had no idea what to look for. For example, since I didn't know eight weeks ago that I'd be interested in the duration of each behavior, I didn't write down start and stop times. Still, my logs were fairly detailed, so I think the data in the chart is close, although not perfect.
Also, you'll see that there are two columns for seven weeks. The first is the first four days after we arrived home from Thanksgiving. I've written before that Maisy has a fairly long stress recovery period, and that was evident here. The second column reflects the data after she seemed to have recovered, although it's possible that there were still some residual stress hormones in her body.
With that said, here are my thoughts. Feel free to chime in with your own.
Number of Incidents
Overall, the trend is downwards, although she was actually above the baseline during the stress recovery period. She's still having approximately two incidents per day where she startles or overreacts to minor or undetectable stimuli in the environment. This number is higher than I'd like, and although I'm not sure what's reasonable to expect, I'd like to see it at more like 3-4 times a week.
Time of Day
I included this because a third of all the incidents during the baseline happened overnight. The number has gone down significantly, which I hope indicates she's sleeping sounder.
Vocalization Type
I'm really not sure what to make of the data here. About the only conclusion I can draw is that she growls less and, at least while recovering from stress, barking more. Possibly more of her incidents are silent, although the last column sort of undermines that conclusion.
Duration
As I already noted, I didn't track duration, although my notes were pretty good. The number of incidents lasting longer than one minute have been reduced by approximately half.
Leaving the Room and Vigilance
These two categories are very similar. Any time an incident included a notation about scanning the environment, I counted it as "vigilance." This has dropped off dramatically, from 30% of all incidents to 0%. (And only 7% during the recovery period!) This is a huge improvement! Leaving the room is probably related to vigilance, but often, I couldn't see what she was doing when she went to a different room, so I listed it in a separate category. The data shows that she's leaving the room far less often, contributing to my conclusion that she's less vigilant these days.
Intensity
This is a completely subjective measure, and retrospective, so take it with a grain of salt. Basically, if I read over a notation and thought it sounded worse than usual, I counted it as high intensity. This is probably the least accurate metric, and it also hasn't really changed. I'm not sure if that's because she's still having large explosions, or if it's because she's mellowed out so much that incidents that might have only been at a medium level during the baseline now seem high intensity to me.
Sample Notations
Baseline:
Maisy was napping. My stomach growled. Maisy jumped up, growled briefly, then trotted into the kitchen, looking around.
We were lying in bed, just on the verge of falling asleep. Maisy suddenly lifted her head and growled for approximately 20 seconds, then "wuffed" several times. She went into the kitchen, looked around for a moment, then ran towards the back door while barking.
Two Weeks:
We were in the kitchen, playing ball. The wind howled outside, and Maisy rushed toward the back door growling. Then she returned to me.
We were sitting on the couch together. I called out to Brian, who was in the other room. Maisy jumped up, startled, then lay down again.
Four Weeks:
We were sitting in the living room, and one of the cats were in the front room. Maisy made a single, soft "wuff."
We were in the living room on the couch. I accidentally "dinged" a glass, and Maisy barked, then trotted around the room for approximately 90 seconds, looking in both the kitchen and at the front door before settling down again.
Six Weeks:
Maisy and I were sitting together, and Brian giggled at something he read. Maisy jumped up, rushed towards Brian, and sat next to him.
Maisy was chewing on a rawhide, then suddenly stood, "wuffed" softly, and let out a short, low growl towards the front door.
Seven Weeks, Recovery Period:
Maisy was lying on the bedroom floor. Brian was in the other room, and when he shifted, his chair made a creaking sound. Maisy jumped up and let out a single bark.
Seven Weeks, Post-Recovery:
Maisy was eating out of a food-toy. I shifted my foot and it made a cracking noise. Maisy jumped up, and rushed approximately one foot away with her tail tucked. She barked three or four times as she did this, then looked around for about five seconds before she let out two small "wuffs."
Medication Update: 8 Week Re-Check
Maisy has a re-check appointment with Dr. Duxbury, her veterinary behaviorist, this week. We are going to evaluate her response to Paxil, the current dosage, and consider if an additional medication might be helpful. I’ve kind of been freaking out about this. I have no idea if Maisy’s response to the meds is typical; maybe the average dog is doing better (or worse) at this point. But I guess this is why I hired a professional, right?
There is much less preparation to be done this time around; no form to fill out and no videos to be taken. Because I’m a geek, I have been keeping behavior logs, although the behaviorist didn’t request them. Instead, I was told to be ready to share my general impressions of how Maisy’s doing, and the areas of continuing difficulty.
I find this incredibly overwhelming. I think she’s doing well, and I’m happy that I chose to put her on medication. But she’s not doing as well as I hoped, and I have no idea how much improvement is reasonable to expect. I don’t think Maisy will ever be “normal,” but how close can we get without overmedicating her?
After several days of panic, and many scribbled pages of notes, I realized that it would be easiest to think in terms of goals. How would I like to see Maisy behave? What do I want to see change? In the paperwork I filled out prior to her consult, I identified two goals: for Maisy to be able to relax, and (if possible) to be able to take her to trials again. Although I still have these goals, I’ve expanded on them so that I have a better idea of what I’m looking for. I’ve also prioritized them, because it’s far more important that she can relax at home than at a trial. I’ve listed these goals below, along with my comments on her progress.
1. Ability to relax at home. Specifically, I want Maisy to be able to hang out and/or take naps without startling over undetectable or minor environmental stimuli. Overall, she’s improved. Her vigilance has reduced, as well as frequency of outbursts. The outbursts are lower intensity and lower duration. She is less restless, and is choosing to nap instead of seek constant interactions with others. She is sleeping more often and more soundly, and is demonstrating increased impulse control around the cats.
2. Ability to settle in low-stimulation environments. If I take her to a friend or family member’s house, I’d like for her to feel comfortable enough to lie down and chill instead of pacing or wandering around. Although my parents thought Maisy did well at their house over Thanksgiving, and commented that she seemed calmer, I think that her vigilance and outbursts were on par with baseline data, or possibly even higher. (I wish I’d done behavior logs at their house.) Also, she paced the entire time we were at my grandparents’ house one afternoon, and couldn't settle, even when there were treats involved.
3. Ability to sleep in low-stimulation environments, especially for overnight trips to a family member’s house, but also at hotels. Maisy didn’t sleep the first night at my parents’ house, instead pacing most of the night, punctuated with barking outbursts. After about 12 hours, she seemed to get used to the environment, and was sleeping better than she had prior to medication (even at home), but not as well as she had been when I did the logs for the six-week update.
4. Ability to recover from stressful events within 24 to 48 hours. Maisy had an average of 3.75 outbursts a day for approximately four days after returning home from my parents’ house, at which point they reduced to the six-week levels, or maybe even a bit better. Despite the frequency of outbursts, 40% were silent (compared to 14% at baseline), which seems good. She was able to sleep (and absolutely crashed the night we got home), although not as well as she’d been doing prior to the trip.
5. Ability to go to trials without demonstrating reactivity. Bonus points if she can relax in her crate at a trial, or can do full days and/or multiple days. Obviously, we haven’t tried this yet. We’ll continue to wait and watch to see if it’s appropriate. It may not be, but I would really like to be able to do at least a single run at a small trial once or twice a year. That said, I do recognize that it’s not likely that she’ll ever be in it for the long haul.
Overall, while I’m pleased with Maisy’s progress, I’m hoping for more. I’m looking forward to discussing everything with Dr. Duxbury, and can't wait to tell you guys about the appointment. It's sure to be interesting!
Friday, December 3, 2010
One Year Blog-iversary!
Wow! Today marks one year of blogging!
I'm pretty impressed with myself; when I started this blog I seriously doubted that I'd keep up with it regularly. This is post number 147, though, so I guess I've done okay!
To celebrate, I'm hosting a Mystery Giveaway! If you win, I will send you a special surprise in the mail.
(It probably won't be a cat, though. Sorry.)
To enter, all you need to do is leave a comment. It can be about anything, but if you need a topic, I'd love it if you told me about the coolest trick your dog can do, or about a trick you really want to teach your dog, or even about the cool trick you saw a dog do once. I'm not picky. Please make sure that I can contact you somehow (either through your blog, or leave an email address), and let me know if you or your dog have any food allergies just in case I decide to do a food-related surprise.
I will choose a winner at random next Friday morning, and will update this post when I do.
And who does that comment belong to?
Congrats, Dawn! I will be emailing you to arrange for you to receive your prize! I love that you have Magic pick things up for you. I'm still working on teaching Maisy how to do that, so I'm envious!
And thanks to everyone who entered. I loved reading about what your dogs do. There are some neat ideas in the comments, and I'm excited to try them!
I'm pretty impressed with myself; when I started this blog I seriously doubted that I'd keep up with it regularly. This is post number 147, though, so I guess I've done okay!
To celebrate, I'm hosting a Mystery Giveaway! If you win, I will send you a special surprise in the mail.
(It probably won't be a cat, though. Sorry.) To enter, all you need to do is leave a comment. It can be about anything, but if you need a topic, I'd love it if you told me about the coolest trick your dog can do, or about a trick you really want to teach your dog, or even about the cool trick you saw a dog do once. I'm not picky. Please make sure that I can contact you somehow (either through your blog, or leave an email address), and let me know if you or your dog have any food allergies just in case I decide to do a food-related surprise.
I will choose a winner at random next Friday morning, and will update this post when I do.
Update, Friday, December 10th:
Okay, it's time to choose a winner! I used my favorite random number generator to pick a number between 1 and 18:
And who does that comment belong to?
Congrats, Dawn! I will be emailing you to arrange for you to receive your prize! I love that you have Magic pick things up for you. I'm still working on teaching Maisy how to do that, so I'm envious!And thanks to everyone who entered. I loved reading about what your dogs do. There are some neat ideas in the comments, and I'm excited to try them!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why I Love My Clicker
Crappy picture is crappy. But I didn't want to spend morethan five minutes shaping this behavior, so this is as good as it gets.
I’ve been thinking a lot about feedback this week. I’ve been thinking about Ian Dunbar’s approach to giving feedback. I’ve been thinking about the way I give feedback, and especially my own shortcomings in my rate of reinforcement. I’ve been thinking about how I react to criticism, and how my dog reacts to being told she’s wrong, too. And after thinking about it, I’ve come to the conclusion that I love my clicker.
Well, I already knew that. Most positive-reinforcement trainers use one. Even trainers who use collar corrections add in clicker work from time to time. It’s a great tool, which is why I was surprised that Ian seemed kind of anti-clicker during the seminar. It seemed to be about more than just the fact that he’s a pet dog person; his criticism of the clicker wasn’t about new students having difficulty with timing or misunderstanding the concept. Instead, he seemed to take issue with the feedback the clicker itself gives: impersonal, sterile, and devoid of emotion and instruction. But in a lot of ways, that’s exactly why I love it!
Is that weird? Maybe. After all, I do understand Ian’s point. All the clicker can do is say yes, you did that correctly. That’s it. It has one setting, one level, one message: yes. It can’t judge quality. It can’t say hey, that was even better than last time. Which is why I supplement the clicker with my voice sometimes, like I did in the chicken video. And if I’m going to do that, why should I bother using the clicker at all?
Because it’s different. Here’s the deal: our dogs hear our voices a lot. I talk to my husband, I talk on the phone, I talk to the cats, heck, I talk to myself. There are even toys that let us talk to our dogs when we’re gone! Of all the times that Maisy hears my voice, how often is it directed towards her? And even then, what percentage of that is meaningful communication versus me just chattering away at her because I love her? The vast majority of the time, my voice is simply background noise with little relevance to her life.
The clicker, on the other hand, is distinct. It’s easy to pick out of the sounds of day to day life because there isn’t anything else in the environment like it. More than that, though, it’s reliable and predictable. That sound always means something good is coming. It may only deliver one message, but that message is unambiguous, easy to understand, and worth paying attention to.
As a result, the clicker is able to get through to my dog much easier than my voice can. When Maisy is distracted or excited, she tends to tune me out. I can almost hear her sometimes: yeah, yeah, I know you’re talking, mom, but right now I’m concentrating so much on those chickens that I can’t be bothered to figure out if your words are for me or not. The beauty of the clicker is that she doesn’t need to think about it at all. She just knows that it’s for her.
Granted, this response happens because the clicker is a conditioned stimulus, not because it’s magic. Any sound can be conditioned the same way, including our voices. In fact, most clicker trainers have a verbal marker that they use, too. However, Lindsay Wood’s thesis found that it takes longer to train a behavior with a verbal marker than with a clicker.
In short, I’ve found that the clicker just relays the message better than my voice does. Of course, that’s still just one message. No matter how good it is at it, it can still only say one thing. I know that Ian really likes to say both yes and no, but honestly? I don’t. It’s not that I necessarily object to saying no- I understand that you need to inhibit behavior sometimes- but I prefer to focus on what’s going well.
I’m a sensitive person. As much as I learn from criticism, as much as I need it and want it, my ego is fragile. I do much better when I’m given positive feedback most of the time. The trainer that Maisy and I work with now is excellent at this, and when I fail, the positive feedback she’s given me previously is able to offset the current negative feedback. It helps me from taking it too personally, and the end result is that I feel generally confident in my abilities and I’m more willing to take risks, even if they might end in an error.
Maisy’s very sensitive, too, so I think she might feel the same way about negative feedback. But even if she doesn’t, and even if my next dog isn’t as soft as her, I know that I’m just not good at giving negative feedback. When I experimented with no reward markers earlier this year, I learned that when I have permission to say no, I quit saying yes. I become frustrated with my dog and with myself. Obviously, this does not help our training.
True, the clicker is just a tool, and like any tool, it has both good points and bad points. But for me, the clicker forces me to focus on the positive. It keeps me on track. It makes me look for success instead of dwell on failure. And most importantly, it builds up my confidence, Maisy’s confidence, and our confidence in one another.
And that’s why I love my clicker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)