My first post and a long one, so I apologize in advance for the length.

I am familiar with escape training -- i.e., low level stim applied 3/10 of a second before the command and shut off upon compliance. One of my dogs was e-collar trained using this method and the Dobbs 3 Action Introduction. I have also read several of Lou Castle's posts and articles.

I understand that many people no longer consider escape training to be a good training technique. Not to speak for Ed, but I have seen on this board that he no longer believes in escape training, but rather that the e-collar should be used like an electronic leash. Also, it seems that the Dobbs have also gone away from escape training and now use nicks immediately following the command to introduce the collar.

If you are not going to do escape training, but rather use the collar like an electronic leash, how is the dog "collar conditioned" -- i.e., made to understand the e-collar? How do you find the dog's working level? Do you nick in conjunction with a leash pop to teach the dog that the nick means the same as the pop? Is there a period of automatic nicks -- for example, "Sit" and then automatic nick as you guide the dog into a sit? If not, how does the dog learn that the nick is for non-compliance and not merely a random event?

Thank you everyone for you knowledge and insight.

Adam

Adam, Great question! And a topic that I'd love to hear input from other people. I will go over several points that I have gone through with my experience in remote collar training a decent number of dogs. I've had my screw ups (like all trainers) but my screw ups have made me look at things in a different way and improve what I do. This is just opinion from experience and learning from a few different ecollar trainers, videos, etc.

I love the e collar and think you can benefit from it greatly. I do understand though, that there is quite a bit of work that needs to be done before introducing the ecollar as far as my program goes. I try to use as minimal stress as I can in training. My goal is to always get reliability without sacraficing temperament.

This is the procedure I usually follow with my basic obedience clients.

Dog is always on the leash but never with tension. Only reason is so that I have some area of influence and so the dog cannot reinforce himself with anything else in the environment.

I start off using just positive reinforcement to teach behaviors. I like to see the dog is able to do the behaviors through reward only in several different rooms in the house and maybe outside the backyard. If the dog is not food motivated then maybe skipping a meal, reducing everyday portions, or using something a lot tastier will motivate them.

Ok, once the dog is fluent in the behaviors through positive reinforcement I quickly (because of time constraints) start using negative reinforcement aka what you call "escape training". I teach the dog through leash and training collar (whether it's buckle, prong, or choke..they all serve the same purpose..delivering an aversive...but the training collar is determined through the dog's sensitivity and the owners ability to apply the training) how to "escape the aversive" by providing very light corrections and using directional help by using the leash.

I use light correction to minimize the stress and promote learning. Only aversive enough to get the dog to respond, no more. And I also start off in a very low level distracting environment (like inside the house)so I don't have to use hard correction and so the dog can stay focused on what i'm trying to teach and not concerned about anything else. Once the dog has mastered this, I gradually move on to something more distracting like the back yard, and keep moving up, and up, and up, in distraction until the dog can do the behaviors in a very distracting place and know what to do. All is done through leash and training collar.

Most of the teaching of negative reinforcement is done inside the house or the backyard (low level distraction) so that by the time I move the dog to a much more difficult context he will not have to do much thinking on how to escape the aversive/correction.

As soon as I see the dog can master a pretty distracting situation on leash then I'm ready to bring in the ecollar.

During all this training I'm still rewarding desired behaviors and I let the dog spend quite a bit of time in the "safe place"(the behavior the dog has escaped to in escape training) which promotes faster learning. And I give a decent amount of time between repetitions.

WOW, this is going to be a long post!!!

I introduce the collar by using a low level nick and giving the same correction right after to condition the nick to the leash correction. So for example, if I'm doing a recall with a client I will have them say "Fido, Come, nick with the ecollar, and pop on the leash. As soon as Fido comes, he gets praised and fed quite a bit.

This is done paired through, quite a few reps and then tested by saying "Fido, Come, nick with the ecollar, and if conditioning is right Fido SHOULD come. If not, then you need to go back a continue pairing nicks with actual leash pops for a few reps and then give Fido another test trial with just the nick alone.

You've got to keep the line on until you get a week straight of Fido knowing exactly what to do (recalling in response to feeling the nick) regardless of context. Meaning he should be able to do it in distracting places with other dogs a people before the line is taken off.

I do feel that using continous is beneficial also and that I do like my dog to be continous literate for sake of it not being foreign to him if I do have to use it.

The benefit to continous is that the dog is truly escaping the aversive versus relying on the foundation of mechanical conditioning the dog would be doing by responding to the nick.

Continous also can be used at a much lower level then nick, giving you much more reserve power if you would need it.

My rule of thumb is that if I do have to go high, i like to use nick first.

I also feel that dogs should experience an impressionable level during the training process(higher then what the dog will just respond to but not death high either). A dog will respond one way to slight discomfort and a totally different way to actual pain. So experience at a tad bit higher level I think should happen during the learning process. Preferrably in an highly aroused state (around high distraction) so that the dog is much more resilient to the correction. And of course after the dog knows exactly why he's being stimmed so that he does not have a superstitous belief with the stim. Superstitious meaning that the dog believe the stim came from a tree and not because he did not recall.

That's it. I'm done writing for days.

Interesting question. But I will add a question to this one. Is the advancement of the use of the nick done because of the failure of the classic excape f/b avoidance training concepts or that it has been discovered that the layman has better success with understaning and applying the nicks than the more difficult escape to avoidance work?

Kevin,just to clarify, when you ask about failure of the classic escape before avoidance training concepts, do you mean in a particular dog or that the concept is considered by some to have failed generally. I obviously don't have the answer evidenced by the fact that I started the thread, but I just wanted to make sure I got your question when others respond.

Also, this may be the same as Kevin's question, but here goes. For those who think escape training is no longer a good training technique --why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of classic escape training and what are the advantages and disadvantages of what I guess I will call "nick/electronic leash" training?

Thanks all again.

Interesting post. I really haven't heard that classical escape training is being less preferred.

Dobbs site still talks about using low stim continuous escape training. Is this from recent experience working with them?

Aamer

 Quote:

Interesting post. I really haven't heard that classical escape training is being less preferred.

I would also be interested in responses by experienced trainers...as there was a time I considered using an ecollar for training. The sales ads make it sound sooo easy....

However, after reading the results of scientific studies done with aversive training methods on animals, which included dogs, and the conclusions drawn from these results, I have lost interest in any ecollar (aversive) training. (Note I said "training"...not "proofing")
I am convinced I could never trust to get the timing just right, thus for me it isn't worth the results predicted by these studies.

As I understand it, there is a difference in escape and avoidance learning: in escape training there is nothing the organism can do to prevent an aversive event. It can only terminate it as quickly as possible and if the animal is not given a way to terminate the event (timing is everything!) it will be taught "learned helplessness".

In classic avoidence learning, a warning signal is given such that if the dog responds correctly, the aversive event is prevented, giving the animal at least some control over its environment.

But in either case, the studies I read indicate there are emotional consequences: animals will learn to escape or avoid aversive situations but their enthusiasm for doing so is minimal.
"There is also the possibility that aversive events not only effect the organism's behavior in that particular situation but also the ability to adjust to future situations." (F. Logan - Principles of Learning: Negative reinforcement). An example of that last quote is one that Ed mentions in his training videos: the negative impact (loss of drive/enthusiasm) resulting from a forced retrieve will often spill over into other parts of a routine.
Guess whether you use averse training or not all depends on your goal. Mine is not automatic, robotic compliance.


PS What I understand from Chris's post, is that he is not doing escape "training" ("I start off using just positive reinforcement to teach behaviors") and uses aversive conditions for proofing/perfection.

This is the kind of chat that I like! I look forward to learning from this, but first I'm trying to get a grip on what we're talking about to make sure we are speaking the same language.

I might be getting booted soon, so I'm not being rude if you aren't able to PM or aren't getting a response from me.

Chris, I'm going to try to cut and paste a bit, but I appreciate your details! The use of the "nick" is of interest.

***Chris Valdes:
... how to "escape the aversive" by providing very light corrections and using directional help by using the leash.***

I'm following you so far, but can you give an example of the directional control?...for what sort of response?

****Chris:
I let the dog spend quite a bit of time in the "safe place"(the behavior the dog has escaped to in escape training) which promotes faster learning. ***

Can you give an example of a 'safe place' with a specific response?

***Chris: I introduce the collar by using a low level nick and giving the same correction right after to condition the nick to the leash correction.***

I love this part! It's a challenge to dig up the conditioning principles involved here. It's great that you have set the dog up so that he is very likely to respond appropriately ... and not setting him up for the stress for failure.

The pairing of both aversive stimuli is really interesting. Normally, an aversive stimuli (unconditioned stimuli) is paired with a neutral stimulus (like maybe a sound) in stimulus conditioning scenarios. Here, you are pairing two unconditioned stimuli....a neat trick. Can I assume that you are doing this because Fido already responds appropriately to the "pop" and you are attempting to transfer that sort of response to the new stimulus (the 'nick')? Cool, it would be interesting to tease out the behavioral principles in such a procedure.

***Chris:
(recalling in response to feeling the nick)***

Why are you wanting the nick to be the cue for the response? I'm sure the nick will certainly increase the likelihood of the response..and speed, but are you planning on fading that 'nick' out eventually? Your goal is to have a reliable response to a verbal cue or hand signal right?..., so help me understand your method here. There is probably something I'm not getting...or something you are leaving out.


***Chris: Superstitious meaning that the dog believe the stim came from a tree and not because he did not recall.***

Superstition...that's a neat topic. I'm going to look into your example because it provokes some technical questions of my own. I won't get into it here unless someone cares, but I'm going to mull it over with someone.


***Chris: That's it. I'm done writing for days.***

No! Don't go away! That was excellent. You've provoked a couple of questions that I will investigate (for my own interests) and I have already jotted them down for discussion with a colleague.

Looking forward to further posts from you.

kelton,
This is getting old, fast.
No where in any post or PM to you has there been any indication , statement, comment, or threat that you
" might be getting booted soon, so I'm not being rude if you aren't able to PM or aren't getting a response from me."

Starting rumors or attempting to gain sympathy over made up crap is childish.

I'm closing what I consider to be a good thread because of your stupid comment.
You're skating on thin ice here if you continue this type of behavior.

In my opinion avoidance training is OLD SCHOOL training. It went out the window when people became interested in drive training.

I do not agree with the earlier posts that there is no place for a collar. That attitude cuts a valuable tool out of the trainer’s tool bag.

The key to collar use (in my opinion) is the dog must know that the shock comes from the handler. There can be no misunderstanding about that. When the foundation is properly set the dog MUST KNOW exactly where the shock comes from.

Whether you use a nick or a burn has nothing to do with the basic concept of collar training. Which you use depends on the issue you are working to correct.

The important thing is the dog must completely know the command and EVERY TIME a dog is corrected in the foundation of collar training the handler should be SAYING "NO! - followed by the collar correction"

The collar is not a tool for the learning phase - it’s a tool to correct a dog for not doing what he knows how to do. If one looks at it like that then collar training becomes very simple. Then it’s only a matter of experimenting with the level of correction to use that will keep the dog in drive after the shock.

Now - with all this said - this is not how to use a collar to stop a dog from getting in the garbage or chasing the neighbor’s cat.

KS: Chris, I'm going to try to cut and paste a bit, but I appreciate your details! The use of the "nick" is of interest.


####CV: Yes, Kelton I like the nick much better because it gives the dog reaction time. Whenever I use it and have to use it more then once I try to use it at a fixed rate of 1 nick every 2 or 3 seconds until the dog shuts it off. This gives the dog plenty of reaction time and not so focused on the event of constant stimulation being applied which can cause "freezing".. I want to say the scientists call it SSDR (something? defense response??) It's been a while, please forgive me.

***Chris Valdes:
... how to "escape the aversive" by providing very light corrections and using directional help by using the leash.***

I'm following you so far, but can you give an example of the directional control?...for what sort of response?

####CV:
Well let's say for the recall. If I were to take a ecollar and put it on the dog, say "come" and start pressing buttons then the response can vary depending on the dog. Ecollars do not provide direction. It is just static stimulation. Some dogs WILL come back as a first response to you but it's definitely not the case for all. And if they do come back, it defintely does not ensure that in their 5th recall or 15th (doesn't matter) that they will come back in response of being corrected by the nick. SO the only option you would have in trying to teach it in that situation is to keep stimming until the dog finally comes to you. Depending on the dog and the size of the area your training he could be giving you a whole lot of responses except for "come" before he figures out that "come" is what shuts off the stimulation (using way too much excess stimulation). That is why I use the leash for directional work. The direction from where the pop/force is coming from is most likely to drive him there. So if I say "come" give him a chance and he doesn't come, he will then get a pop on the leash and get fed when he comes back to me. So he has double incentive. It is not until he is fluent on the leash, that I start pairing the ecollar with the leash pops.

To be honest, some dogs I will not even give a chance to respond to the "come" command before applying the aversive. The only reason is because of the time constraint(6 to 10 weeks) I'm under when training dogs for people. Some dogs can be corrected a couple of times when not coming and never want to challenge it again until a few days later when something else in the outside environment is much more attractive again. In order for me to ensure they have a consistent response to the aversive, I need them to have a good amount of experience with it. And I NEED them to have experience with the aversive with me so I can ensure the fluency in the dog and leave the owner in a maintenance stage with his/her dog. (Ask me to elaborate at anytime, i know I can get ahead of myself)

****Chris:
I let the dog spend quite a bit of time in the "safe place"(the behavior the dog has escaped to in escape training) which promotes faster learning. ***

Can you give an example of a 'safe place' with a specific response?

#### When the dog comes to me in response of the recall. I spend a lot of time praising and feeding while he's with me (safe spot). I try to make his options as blatant as possible. I keep my repetitions (trials <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) far apart from each other (at least a good 4-5 minutes). The reason I do it is because I've noticed it becomes a lot clearer and definitive to the dog when the dog hears the stimulus of the word "come" alone very far apart from each other so that the prediction of possible consequences is clear in his mind. (If I'm not making sense, tell me.) I think of the word come being the warning buzzard in an experiment, depending on his response he can experience a good or bad consequence. Good is obviously being able to avoid and getting fed for correct response and bad is the stimulation.

***Chris: I introduce the collar by using a low level nick and giving the same correction right after to condition the nick to the leash correction.***

I love this part! It's a challenge to dig up the conditioning principles involved here. It's great that you have set the dog up so that he is very likely to respond appropriately ... and not setting him up for the stress for failure.

The pairing of both aversive stimuli is really interesting. Normally, an aversive stimuli (unconditioned stimuli) is paired with a neutral stimulus (like maybe a sound) in stimulus conditioning scenarios. Here, you are pairing two unconditioned stimuli....a neat trick. Can I assume that you are doing this because Fido already responds appropriately to the "pop" and you are attempting to transfer that sort of response to the new stimulus (the 'nick')? Cool, it would be interesting to tease out the behavioral principles in such a procedure.

###CV: Yes, it is the exact reason why I pair the leash and nick together. I try to be as effecient as possible. They both are paired with the nuetral stimulus of "come" so that it ends up being just a response to the word "come".

***Chris:
(recalling in response to feeling the nick)***

Why are you wanting the nick to be the cue for the response? I'm sure the nick will certainly increase the likelihood of the response..and speed, but are you planning on fading that 'nick' out eventually? Your goal is to have a reliable response to a verbal cue or hand signal right?..., so help me understand your method here. There is probably something I'm not getting...or something you are leaving out.

####CV: Sorry for not explaining better. Yes, the goal is just to respond to the word "come". When I say "recalling in response to nick" I am meaning that when he feels the nick as a correction his ONLY response should be to return to whoever is giving the command. So in other words, If I say the word "come" and he comes then he does not get stimulation. But if he does not come, then I will give him a corrective nick and he should know that the nick is for not responding to the "come" command and that the only desired remedial behavior is to "COME". As I said before. Some dogs will not respond to stimulation by coming back, some will run away, stand still, move around, whatever. I need to know that regardless of situation, in the house, in the park, at the pet store, by the dog park, that the dog is going to come when called before I feel comfortable in stamping the dog with the "he now has a recall" stamp. In other words, that he is well generalized to not only what "come" means but what the corrective nick for lack of response means also so that he can avoid it successfully in the future.


***Chris: Superstitious meaning that the dog believe the stim came from a tree and not because he did not recall.***

Superstition...that's a neat topic. I'm going to look into your example because it provokes some technical questions of my own. I won't get into it here unless someone cares, but I'm going to mull it over with someone.

####CV: I would be very interested in the topic. Please share!


***Chris: That's it. I'm done writing for days.***

No! Don't go away! That was excellent. You've provoked a couple of questions that I will investigate (for my own interests) and I have already jotted them down for discussion with a colleague.

Looking forward to further posts from you.

###CV: Thank you Kelton. Likewise!