Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Lee forget it,

He is arguing that you can speed up a physologic resopnse through rehersal. Ain't going to happen. A CC response is as fast as it's going to get. It doesn't improve with practice, if anything it will slow down with practice. The only thing you can spped up is an emmited response, because the animal has control over it.

WRONG. Get a grip will you guys. What you are saying has nothing to do with what I am saying.


David is the first to understand it so far and he does maybe better then others because he has seen it first hand in action. There is nothing to prove here but for some a chance to bend the brain around the corner and discover something new.


Operant conditioning (OC) is a process whereby a subject learns about the "consequences" of its behavior. Operant behavior is said to be “emitted” not “elicited”.


Classical conditioning is the process by which an initially neutral stimulus (the conditioned stimulus; CS) comes to evoke a response (the conditioned response; CR) through being repeatedly paired with a stimulus (the unconditioned stimulus; US) which automatically (without training) elicits a response (the unconditioned response; UR).

3 auto corrections Goal: Make the command a predictor of a coming correction upon hearing it though pairing of correction and command. This is Classical. The more reliably the CS can predict the US, the stronger will be the conditioning.(contingency theory)


Freebie goal: Test the CR strength. (Reflexive action = Ideal) or not reflexive (fear of coming correction = not ideal) Note: this is a result of weaker association likely and related to the timing and the US.

On the freebie the dog is "allowed" to escape the correction. The dog learns on the freebie if he is reactive i.e. fast he can beat the correction...never mind the fact no correction was given on the freebie. But because we classically established the command = correction the dog the dog does not hesitate but reacts to the command. This part IS Operant.

Two-factor or two-process theory has similar characteristics. Avoidance in this is due to 2 processes classical conditioning and operant conditioning. And this is a type of training based on acquired drive experiments.

In the typical avoidance procedure the classical conditioning, and instrumental conditioning, occur simultaneously.

But if two-factor theory is correct it should be possible to train these two kinds of learning separately.

1) Condition fear to a CS with a pure classical conditioning procedure.
CS (tone) --> US (shock)

CR (fear)

2) The dog is periodically presented with the CS, but an instrumental response can prevent it. No shock or leash corrections are delivered in phase 2.


For Reference

A motivational correction is a correction the dog will respond physiologically to and has a psychological effect geared toward avoiding it again. What the subject thinks is motivational is specific to the individual subject.


Origins of the study of avoidance

Vladimir Becherev (1913)

Participants were asked to put their finger on a metal plate.

When a tone (CS) was occurred it was followed a motivational correction in the form of a shock (US) through the metal plate

Participants quickly learned to pick up their finger when they heard the tone (CR).

This was considered to be a standard example of classical conditioning.

NOW SEE ANY SIMULARITY IN THIS EXAMPLE?


The 3 auto-corrections


3 times in a row the dog is placed in a collar and on leash.

When a specific command (CS) occurs (tone) it is followed by a motivational correction (US) in the form of a down and forward pop on leash and collar. (This correction is directional)

The participant (dog) quickly learns to drop down when it hears the command. (CR)

Why is does doubt exist about the classical nature of the 3 auto corrections in the second example? This phase is classical. That example is as clear as it can be and it is tit-for-tat with the Becherev's example given in 1000’s of text books.

Before you start slamming, try first understanding…

I think it is good a few of us are willing to take some ides a little further, work them over, no harm done. Thanks Lee and Richard for the ride.

OOPS.... I was trying to reply to the first post and accidentally edited instead. Sorry.

With that said...
Dennis,
While some people on the board may enjoy your obvious love of typing, I for one don't even take the time anymore to read your posts anymore. They are too long and you seem to like to quote data and argue with anyone and EVERYONE who cares to challenge you while forgetting this a dog training board where people come to ask practical questions about DOGS and issues that relate to them. I do realize theory is important and does apply BUT this is getting a little tiresome.

I believe this thread has run it's course.