FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Animals (Basel) / What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinfor...
Animals : an open access journal from MDPI2020; 10(10); 1757; doi: 10.3390/ani10101757

What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract: A conditioned reinforcer is a stimulus that acquired its effectiveness to increase and maintain a target behavior on the basis of the individual's history-e.g., pairings with other reinforcers. This systematic review synthesized findings on conditioned reinforcement in the applied animal training field. Thirty-four studies were included in the review and six studies were eligible for a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of behavioral interventions that implemented conditioned reinforcement (e.g., clicks, spoken word, or whistles paired with food). The majority of studies investigated conditioned reinforcement with dogs (47%, n = 16) and horses (30%, n = 10) implementing click-food pairings. All other species (cats, cattle, fish, goats, and monkeys) were equally distributed across types of conditioned (e.g., clicker or spoken word) and unconditioned reinforcers (e.g., food, water, or tactile). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of conditioned reinforcement in behavioral interventions found a medium summary effect size (Tau-U 0.77; CI = [0.53, 0.89]), when comparing baseline, where no training was done, and treatment levels. Moderators of conditioned reinforcement effectiveness were species (e.g., horses) and research design (e.g., multiple-baseline designs). The small number of intervention-focused studies available limits the present findings and highlights the need for more systematic research into the effectiveness of conditioned reinforcement across species.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-09-28 PubMed ID: 32998242PubMed Central: PMC7600771DOI: 10.3390/ani10101757Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Review

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research article is a systematic review and meta-analysis that examines the effectiveness of conditioned reinforcement in animal training. It finds that when stimuli like clicks and spoken words are paired with treats, they can effectively increase and maintain target behavior in animals.

Introduction to the Research

  • The researchers conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of conditioned reinforcement in animal training.
  • Conditioned reinforcement, a prominent concept in behavioral science, refers to a stimulus, like a click or spoken word, that has been used repeatedly with other reinforcing factors like food, to create a specific response in an animal.

Methodology and Sample

  • The study analyzed findings from 34 different sources that examined conditioned reinforcement’s effect in the field of applied animal training, making a significant cross-section of research available for analysis.
  • Out of these, six studies were eligible for a meta-analysis, a statistical method for combining the results of many studies to obtain a general conclusion.
  • The animals involved in these studies were predominantly dogs (representing 47% of the studied population) and horses (30%), with cats, cattle, fish, goats, and monkeys also included.

Key Findings: Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training

  • The type of conditioned reinforcement used varied across studies, including clicks, spoken words, and whistles paired with food for reinforcers.
  • Based on the meta-analysis, the researchers found a medium summary effect size (Tau-U 0.77; CI = [0.53, 0.89]). This indicates a noteworthy effectiveness of using conditioned reinforcement in applied animal training when compared to baseline levels where no training was conducted.
  • In terms of factors modifying the effectiveness of conditioned reinforcement, animal species (with horses showing particular responsiveness) and research design were highlighted, with multiple-baseline designs proving most effective.

Implications and Recommendations

  • One of the research limitations was the small number of intervention-focused studies available. This could potentially limit the scope and generalizability of the present findings.
  • Recognizing this limitation, the researchers suggest more systematic research into the effectiveness of conditioned reinforcement across different species to further validate and refine their findings.

Cite This Article

APA
Pfaller-Sadovsky N, Hurtado-Parrado C, Cardillo D, Medina LG, Friedman SG. (2020). What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Animals (Basel), 10(10), 1757. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101757

Publication

Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
ISSN: 2076-2615
NlmUniqueID: 101635614
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 10
Issue: 10
PII: 1757

Researcher Affiliations

Pfaller-Sadovsky, Nicole
  • School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast BT95AJ, UK.
Hurtado-Parrado, Camilo
  • Department of Psychology, Troy University, Troy, AL 36082, USA.
  • Faculty of Psychology, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Bogota 110221, Colombia.
Cardillo, Daniela
  • Green Dogs, Via Dante Alighieri 7, 23814 Cremeno, Italy.
Medina, Lucia G
  • Faculty of Psychology, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Bogota 110221, Colombia.
Friedman, Susan G
  • Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 124 references
  1. Diamond J. Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication.. Nature 2002 Aug 8;418(6898):700-7.
    doi: 10.1038/nature01019pubmed: 12167878google scholar: lookup
  2. Cooper J.O., Heron T.E., Heward W.L.. Applied Behavior Analysis. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall; Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: 2007. pp. 176–224.
  3. Pryor K., Ramirez K.. Modern Animal Training A Transformative Technology. In: Mcsweeney E.S., Murphy F.K., editors. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Operant and Classical Conditioning. 1st ed. John Wiley & Sons; Chichester, UK: 2014. pp. 456–487.
  4. Fernandez E.J.. An 8-Step Program: Shaping and Fixed-Time Food Delivery Effects on Several Approximations and Undesired Responses in Goats. Master’s Thesis. University of North Texas; Denton, TX, USA: May, 2003.
  5. Gillis TE, Janes AC, Kaufman MJ. Positive reinforcement training in squirrel monkeys using clicker training.. Am J Primatol 2012 Aug;74(8):712-20.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.22015pmc: PMC3412074pubmed: 22553135google scholar: lookup
  6. Grant R.A., Warrior J.R.. Clicker training increases exploratory behaviour and time spent at the front of the enclosure in shelter cats: Implications for welfare and adoption rates. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019;211:77–83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.12.002google scholar: lookup
  7. Mirwan H.B., Mason G.J., Kevan P.G.. Complex operant learning by worker bumblebees (Bombus impatiens): Detour behaviour and use of colours as discriminative stimuli. Insectes Sociaux 2015;62:365–377.
    doi: 10.1007/s00040-015-0414-6google scholar: lookup
  8. Pfaller-Sadovsky N., Medina L.G., Hurtado-Parrado C.. It is mine! Using clicker training as a treatment of object guarding in 4 companion dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2017;22:57–65.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.08.002google scholar: lookup
  9. Slater C, Dymond S. Using differential reinforcement to improve equine welfare: shaping appropriate truck loading and feet handling.. Behav Processes 2011 Mar;86(3):329-39.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2011.02.001pubmed: 21310219google scholar: lookup
  10. Hendriksen P., Elmgreen K., Ladewig J.. Trailer-loading of horses: Is there a difference between positive and negative reinforcement concerning effectiveness and stress-related signs?. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2011;6:261–266.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2011.02.007google scholar: lookup
  11. Ziv G.. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2017;19:50–60.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004google scholar: lookup
  12. Ramirez K.. Animal Training: Successful Animal Management through Positive Reinforcement. 1st ed. Shedd Aquarium; Chicago, IL, USA: 1999. Basic Operant Conditioning; pp. 65–111.
  13. Pavlov I.P., Gantt W.H. In: Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-Five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behaviour) of Animals. Gantt W.H., editor. Liverwright Publishing Corporation; New York, NY, USA: 1928.
    doi: 10.1037/11081-000google scholar: lookup
  14. Skinner B.F.. The Behavior of Organisms. B.F. Skinner Foundation; Cambridge, MA, USA: 1938.
  15. Pierce W.D., Cheney C.D.. Behavior Analysis and Learning. 6th ed. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2017. pp. 1–613.
  16. Skinner B.F.. How to Teach Animals. Sci. Am. 1951 185:26–29.
    doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1251-26google scholar: lookup
  17. Roddy J.. Harvard-trained dog. LOOK May 20, 1952. pp. 17–20.
  18. Burch M.R., Bailey J.S.. How Dogs Learn. Wiley Publishing, Inc.; New York, NY, USA: 1999. pp. 1–177.
  19. Pryor K.. History of Clicker Training I. 2013.
  20. Chiandetti C., Avella S., Fongaro E., Cerri F.. Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;184:109–116.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.08.006google scholar: lookup
  21. Feng L.C., Hodgens N.H., Woodhead J.K., Howell T.J., Bennett P.C.. Is clicker training (clicker + food) better than food-only training for novice companion dogs and their owners?. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2018;204:81–93.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.04.015google scholar: lookup
  22. Ferguson DL, Rosales-Ruiz J. Loading the problem loader: the effects of target training and shaping on trailer-loading behavior of horses.. J Appl Behav Anal 2001 Winter;34(4):409-23.
    doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-409pmc: PMC1284337pubmed: 11800182google scholar: lookup
  23. Rybova V.. Target Training as a Differential Reinforcement Intervention for Separation-Induced Challenging Behaviour in Horses. Master’s Thesis. University of Auckland; Auckland, New Zealand: 2018.
  24. Lansade L, Calandreau L. A conditioned reinforcer did not help to maintain an operant conditioning in the absence of a primary reinforcer in horses.. Behav Processes 2018 Jan;146:61-63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.11.012pubmed: 29158027google scholar: lookup
  25. McCall C.A., Burgin S.E.. Equine utilization of secondary reinforcment during response extinction and acquisition. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2002;78:253–262.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00109-0google scholar: lookup
  26. Smith S.M., Davis E.S.. Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;110:318–329.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.012google scholar: lookup
  27. Wennmacher P.L.. Effects of Click + Continuous Food versus Click + Intermittent Food on the Maintenance of Dog Behavior. Master’s Thesis. University of North Texas; Denton, TX, USA: May, 2007.
  28. Willson E.K., Stratton R.B., Bolwell C.F., Stafford K.J.. Comparison of positive reinforcement training in cats: A pilot study. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2017;21:64–70.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.07.007google scholar: lookup
  29. Wood L.. Clicker Bridging Stimulus Efficacy. Hunter College; New York, NY, USA: 2007.
  30. Fernandez EJ, Dorey NR. An Examination of Shaping with an African Crested Porcupine (Hystrix cristata).. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2021 Oct-Dec;24(4):372-378.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2020.1753191pubmed: 32309999google scholar: lookup
  31. Johnston J.M., Pennypacker H.S.. Strategies and Tactics of Behavioral Research. 3rd ed. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2009.
  32. D’Onofrio J.M.. Measuring The Efficiency of Clicker Training for Service Dogs. Master’s Thesis. Pennsylvania State University; Pennsylvania, PA, USA: Dec, 2015.
  33. Häderer I.K., Michiels N.K.. Successful operant conditioning of marine fish in their natural habitat. Copeia 2016;104:380–386.
    doi: 10.1643/CE-14-185google scholar: lookup
  34. Williams J.L., Friend T.H., Nevill C.H., Archer G.. The efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during acquisition and extinction of an operant task in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004;88:331–341.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2004.03.008google scholar: lookup
  35. Dozier CL, Iwata BA, Thomason-Sassi J, Worsdell AS, Wilson DM. A comparison of two pairing procedures to establish praise as a reinforcer.. J Appl Behav Anal 2012 Winter;45(4):721-35.
    doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-721pmc: PMC3545497pubmed: 23322928google scholar: lookup
  36. Williams BA. Conditioned reinforcement: Experimental and theoretical issues.. Behav Anal 1994 Fall;17(2):261-85.
    doi: 10.1007/BF03392675pmc: PMC2733461pubmed: 22478192google scholar: lookup
  37. Williams BA. Conditioned reinforcement: Neglected or outmoded explanatory construct?. Psychon Bull Rev 1994 Dec;1(4):457-75.
    doi: 10.3758/BF03210950pubmed: 24203554google scholar: lookup
  38. Martin S., Friedman S.G.. Blazing Clickers. .
  39. Fernandez E.J.. Click or Treat: A trick or two in the zoo. Am. Anim. Train. Mag. 2001;2:41–44.
  40. Dorey NR, Cox DJ. Function matters: a review of terminological differences in applied and basic clicker training research.. PeerJ 2018;6:e5621.
    doi: 10.7717/peerj.5621pmc: PMC6151118pubmed: 30258718google scholar: lookup
  41. Feng L.C., Howell T.J., Bennett P.C.. How clicker training works: Comparing Reinforcing, Marking, and Bridging Hypotheses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;181:34–40.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.05.012google scholar: lookup
  42. Petticrew M., Roberts H.. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell Publishing; Malden, MA, USA: 2006. pp. 1–324.
    doi: 10.5860/choice.43-5664google scholar: lookup
  43. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.. PLoS Med 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100pmc: PMC2707010pubmed: 19621070google scholar: lookup
  44. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.. PLoS Med 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097pmc: PMC2707599pubmed: 19621072google scholar: lookup
  45. Sandieson R.W., Kirkpatrick L.C., Sandieson R.M., Zimmerman W.. Harnessing the power of education research databases with the pearl-harvesting methodological framework for information retrieval. J. Spec. Educ. 2010;44:161–175.
    doi: 10.1177/0022466909349144google scholar: lookup
  46. Morville P., Rosenfeld L.. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc.; Sebastopol, CA, USA: 2007.
  47. Sandieson R.W.. Pathfinding in the Research Forest: The Pearl Harvesting Method for Effective Information Retrieval. Educ. Train. Dev. Disabil. 2006 41:401–409.
  48. McGreevy P.D., Boakes R.. Learning Theory and Positive Reinforcement. In: McGreevy P.D., Boakes R., editors. Carrots and Sticks: Principles of Animal Training. Sydney University Press; Sydney, Australia: 2011. pp. 24–64.
  49. Lipsey M.W., Wilson D.B.. Practical Meta-Analysis. 1st ed. Sage Publications Ltd.; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: 2001. pp. 1–247.
  50. Martinez de Andino E.V., McDonnell S.M.. Evaluation of operant learning in young foals using target training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017;193:67–72.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2017.02.021google scholar: lookup
  51. Langbein J., Siebert K., Nuernberg G., Manteuffel G.. The impact of acoustical secondary reinforcement during shape discrimination learning of dwarf goats (Capra hircus). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007;103:35–44.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2006.04.019google scholar: lookup
  52. Romeiser Logan L, Hickman RR, Harris SR, Heriza CB. Single-subject research design: recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating.. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008 Feb;50(2):99-103.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02005.xpubmed: 18201299google scholar: lookup
  53. Bormann I.. DigitizeIt: Digitizer Software-Digitize Scanned Graph or Chart into (x,y)-Data. .
  54. Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL, Sauber SB. Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U.. Behav Ther 2011 Jun;42(2):284-99.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006pubmed: 21496513google scholar: lookup
  55. Parker RI, Vannest KJ, Davis JL. Effect size in single-case research: a review of nine nonoverlap techniques.. Behav Modif 2011 Jul;35(4):303-22.
    doi: 10.1177/0145445511399147pubmed: 21411481google scholar: lookup
  56. Vannest K.J., Ninci J.. Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. J. Couns. Dev. 2015;93:403–411.
    doi: 10.1002/jcad.12038google scholar: lookup
  57. Morin K.L., Ganz J.B., Vannest K.J., Haas A.N., Nagro S.A., Peltier C.J., Ura S.K.. A Systematic review of Single-Case Research on video analysis as professional development for special educators. J. Spec. Educ. 2019;53:3–14.
    doi: 10.1177/0022466918798361google scholar: lookup
  58. Vannest K.J., Parker R.I., Gonen O., Adiguzel T.. Single-Case Research: Web-Based Calculators for SCR Analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-Based Application]. Texas A&M University; College Station, TX, USA: 2016.
  59. Biostat, Inc.. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis©, version 3.0. Computer Software; Biostat, Inc.; Englewood, NJ, USA: 2019.
  60. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P., Rothstein H.R.. Regression in Meta-Analysis. 2015.
  61. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P., Rothstein H.R.. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; Chichester, UK: 2009.
  62. Higgins J.P., Green S.. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; London, UK: 2011.
  63. Littell J.H., Corcoran J., Pillai V.. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2008. pp. 1–193.
  64. Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity.. Res Synth Methods 2017 Mar;8(1):5-18.
    doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1230pubmed: 28058794google scholar: lookup
  65. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.. Stat Med 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58.
    doi: 10.1002/sim.1186pubmed: 12111919google scholar: lookup
  66. Batt L., Batt M., Baguley J., McGreevy P.. The effects of structured sessions for juvenile training and socialization on guide dog success and puppy-raiser participation. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2008;3:199–206.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2008.05.001google scholar: lookup
  67. Blandina A.G.. To Click or Not to Click: The Impact of Positive Reinforcement Methods on the Acquisition of Behavior. Bachelor’s Thesis. University of Florida; Gainesville, FL, USA: 2010.
  68. Fernström AL, Fredlund H, Spångberg M, Westlund K. Positive reinforcement training in rhesus macaques-training progress as a result of training frequency.. Am J Primatol 2009 May;71(5):373-9.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.20659pubmed: 19195008google scholar: lookup
  69. Fjellanger R., Andersen E.K., McLean I.G.. A Training Program for Filter-Search Mine Detection Dogs. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 2002 15:278–287.
  70. Flannery B.. Relational discrimination learning in horses. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997;54:267–280.
    doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00006-3google scholar: lookup
  71. Flynn K.K.. Conditioned Reinforcement with an Equine Subject. Master’s Thesis. North Texas State University; Denton, TX, USA: May, 1980.
  72. Fugazza C., Miklosi Á.. Social learning in dog training: The effectiveness of the Do as I do method compared to shaping/clicker training. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015;171:146–151.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.08.033google scholar: lookup
  73. Guerrero-Flores H, Apresa-García T, Garay-Villar Ó, Sánchez-Pérez A, Flores-Villegas D, Bandera-Calderón A, García-Palacios R, Rojas-Sánchez T, Romero-Morelos P, Sánchez-Albor V, Mata O, Arana-Conejo V, Badillo-Romero J, Taniguchi K, Marrero-Rodríguez D, Mendoza-Rodríguez M, Rodríguez-Esquivel M, Huerta-Padilla V, Martínez-Castillo A, Hernández-Gallardo I, López-Romero R, Bandala C, Rosales-Guevara J, Salcedo M. A non-invasive tool for detecting cervical cancer odor by trained scent dogs.. BMC Cancer 2017 Jan 26;17(1):79.
    doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2996-4pmc: PMC5267360pubmed: 28122528google scholar: lookup
  74. Meyer I., Ladewig J.. The relationship between number of training sessions per week and learning in dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2008;111:311–320.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.06.016google scholar: lookup
  75. Strychalski J., Gugołek A., Konstantynowicz M.. Clicker Training Efficiency in Shaping the Desired Behaviour in the Following Dog Breeds: Boxer, Chow Chow and Yorkshire Terrier. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2015 30:235–243.
  76. Thorn JM, Templeton JJ, Van Winkle KM, Castillo RR. Conditioning shelter dogs to sit.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2006;9(1):25-39.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0901_3pubmed: 16649949google scholar: lookup
  77. Whistance L.K., Sinclair L.A., Arney D.R., Phillips C.J.C.. Trainability of eliminative behaviour in dairy heifers using a secondary reinforcer. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2009;117:128–136.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.01.004google scholar: lookup
  78. Willis CM, Church SM, Guest CM, Cook WA, McCarthy N, Bransbury AJ, Church MR, Church JC. Olfactory detection of human bladder cancer by dogs: proof of principle study.. BMJ 2004 Sep 25;329(7468):712.
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7468.712pmc: PMC518893pubmed: 15388612google scholar: lookup
  79. Fernandez EJ, Dorey N, Rosales-Ruiz J. A two-choice preference assessment with five cotton-top tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2004;7(3):163-9.
    doi: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0703_2pubmed: 15498723google scholar: lookup
  80. Chance P.. Learning and Behavior. Wadsworth Thomson Learning; Belmont, CA, USA: 2013. pp. 1–442.
  81. Guest T.. How to Practice Clicker Mechanics. 2012.
  82. Hurtado-Parrado C, López-López W. Single-Case Research Methods: History and Suitability for a Psychological Science in Need of Alternatives.. Integr Psychol Behav Sci 2015 Sep;49(3):323-49.
    doi: 10.1007/s12124-014-9290-2pubmed: 25876996google scholar: lookup
  83. Pfaller-Sadovsky N, Arnott G, Hurtado-Parrado C. Using Principles from Applied Behaviour Analysis to Address an Undesired Behaviour: Functional Analysis and Treatment of Jumping Up in Companion Dogs.. Animals (Basel) 2019 Dec 6;9(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani9121091pmc: PMC6940775pubmed: 31817670google scholar: lookup
  84. Alligood CA, Dorey NR, Mehrkam LR, Leighty KA. Applying behavior-analytic methodology to the science and practice of environmental enrichment in zoos and aquariums.. Zoo Biol 2017 May;36(3):175-185.
    doi: 10.1002/zoo.21368pubmed: 29165867google scholar: lookup
  85. Farhoody P. Behavior analysis: the science of training.. Vet Clin North Am Exot Anim Pract 2012 Sep;15(3):361-9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.cvex.2012.06.001pubmed: 22998955google scholar: lookup
  86. Fernandez EJ. Training Petting Zoo Sheep to Act Like Petting Zoo Sheep: An Empirical Evaluation of Response-Independent Schedules and Shaping with Negative Reinforcement.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jul 1;10(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071122pmc: PMC7401582pubmed: 32630257google scholar: lookup
  87. Feuerbacher EN, Muir KL. Using Owner Return as a Reinforcer to Operantly Treat Separation-Related Problem Behavior in Dogs.. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 29;10(7).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10071110pmc: PMC7401621pubmed: 32610513google scholar: lookup
  88. Protopopova A, Kisten D, Wynne C. Evaluating a humane alternative to the bark collar: Automated differential reinforcement of not barking in a home-alone setting.. J Appl Behav Anal 2016 Dec;49(4):735-744.
    doi: 10.1002/jaba.334pubmed: 27398817google scholar: lookup
  89. Poling A, Weetjens B, Cox C, Beyene N, Durgin A, Mahoney A. Tuberculosis detection by giant african pouched rats.. Behav Anal 2011 Spring;34(1):47-54.
    doi: 10.1007/BF03392234pmc: PMC3089413pubmed: 22532730google scholar: lookup
  90. Schlinger H.D.. The Importance of Analysis in Applied Behavior Analysis. Behav. Anal. Res. Pract. 2017;17:334–346.
    doi: 10.1037/bar0000080google scholar: lookup
  91. Mayir B, Bilecik T, Çakır T, Doğan U, Gündüz UR, Aslaner A, Oruç MT. Analysis of the publishing rate and the number of citations of general surgery dissertations.. Turk J Surg 2017;33(1):33-36.
    doi: 10.5152/UCD.2016.3190pmc: PMC5506762pubmed: 28740947google scholar: lookup
  92. Evans SC, Amaro CM, Herbert R, Blossom JB, Roberts MC. "Are you gonna publish that?" Peer-reviewed publication outcomes of doctoral dissertations in psychology.. PLoS One 2018;13(2):e0192219.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192219pmc: PMC5812605pubmed: 29444130google scholar: lookup
  93. Branch M.N., Pennypacker H.S.. Generality And Generalization of Research Findings. In: Madden G.J., editor. APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis. Volume 1. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC, USA: 2013. pp. 151–175.
  94. Johnston JM. On the relation between generalization and generality.. Behav Anal 1979 Fall;2(2):1-6.
    doi: 10.1007/BF03391833pmc: PMC2741792pubmed: 22478273google scholar: lookup
  95. Dorey N.R., Blandina A., Udell M.A.R.. Clicker training does not enhance learning in mixed-breed shelter puppies (Canis familiaris). J. Vet. Behav. 2020;39:57–63.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2020.07.005google scholar: lookup
  96. Fernandez E.J., Rosales-Ruiz J.. A comparison of fixed-time food schedules and shaping involving a clicker for halter behavior in a petting zoo goat. Psychol. Rec. 2020.
    doi: 10.1007/s40732-020-00420-3google scholar: lookup
  97. Martin AL, Franklin AN, Perlman JE, Bloomsmith MA. Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.. Behav Processes 2018 Dec;157:445-452.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2018.07.002pmc: PMC6240383pubmed: 30003936google scholar: lookup
  98. Protopopova A., Brandifino M., Wynne C.D.L.. Preference assessments and structured potential adopter-dog interactions increase adoptions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2016;176:87–95.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2015.12.003google scholar: lookup
  99. Vicars SM, Miguel CF, Sobie JL. Assessing preference and reinforcer effectiveness in dogs.. Behav Processes 2014 Mar;103:75-83.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2013.11.006pubmed: 24270051google scholar: lookup
  100. Vitale Shreve KR, Mehrkam LR, Udell MAR. Social interaction, food, scent or toys? A formal assessment of domestic pet and shelter cat (Felis silvestris catus) preferences.. Behav Processes 2017 Aug;141(Pt 3):322-328.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.016pubmed: 28343989google scholar: lookup
  101. Gaalema DE, Perdue BM, Kelling AS. Food preference, keeper ratings, and reinforcer effectiveness in exotic animals: the value of systematic testing.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2011;14(1):33-41.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2011.527602pubmed: 21191846google scholar: lookup
  102. Gallistel CR, Craig AR, Shahan TA. Contingency, contiguity, and causality in conditioning: Applying information theory and Weber's Law to the assignment of credit problem.. Psychol Rev 2019 Oct;126(5):761-773.
    doi: 10.1037/rev0000163pubmed: 31464474google scholar: lookup
  103. McGreevy P.D.. Learning. In: McGreevy P.D., editor. Equine Behavior: A Guide for Veterinarians and Equine Scientists. 2nd ed. Saunders Elsevier; Sydney, Australia: 2012. pp. 83–117.
  104. Mills D.S.. Training And Learning Protocols. In: Horwitz D.F., Mills D.S., editors. BSAVA Manual of Canine and Feline Behaviour. 3rd ed. British Small Animal Veterinary Association; Quedgeley, UK: 2010. pp. 49–64.
  105. Ramirez K.. Is a Clicker Necessary?. 2017.
  106. Pryor K.W.. Charging the Clicker. 2006.
  107. Ryan T., Mortensen K.. Outwitting Dogs: Revolutionary Techniques for Dog Training That Work!. The Lyons Press; Guildford, CT, USA: 2004.
  108. Feng L.C., Howell T.J., Bennett P.C.. Comparing trainers’ reports of clicker use to the use of clickers in applied research studies: Methodological differences may explain conflicting results. Pet Behav. Sci. 2017;3:1–18.
    doi: 10.21071/pbs.v0i3.5786google scholar: lookup
  109. Pryor K.W.. Getting Started: Clicker Training for Dogs. Sunshine Books, Inc.; Waltham, MA, USA: 2005.
  110. Feng L.C., Howell T.J., Bennett P.C.. Practices and perceptions of clicker use in dog training: A survey-based investigation of dog owners and industry professionals. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2018;23:1–9.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jveb.2017.10.002google scholar: lookup
  111. Pear J.J.. The Science of Learning. 2nd ed. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 2016. pp. 1–489.
  112. Silva FJ, Silva KM, Pear JJ. Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance.. J Exp Anal Behav 1992 Jan;57(1):17-31.
    doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.57-17pmc: PMC1323066pubmed: 1548447google scholar: lookup
  113. Ledford JR, Barton EE, Severini KE, Zimmerman KN. A Primer on Single-Case Research Designs: Contemporary Use and Analysis.. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil 2019 Jan;124(1):35-56.
    doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-124.1.35pubmed: 30715924google scholar: lookup
  114. Pfaller-Sadovsky N, Medina L, Dillenburger K, Hurtado-Parrado C. We Don't Train in Vain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human and Canine Caregiver Training.. J Appl Anim Welf Sci 2020 Jul-Sep;23(3):265-301.
    doi: 10.1080/10888705.2019.1646134pubmed: 31394050google scholar: lookup
  115. Hammond D., Gast D.L.. Descriptive Analysis of Single Subject Research Designs: 1983–2007. Educ. Train. Autism Dev. Disabil. 2010 45:187–202.
  116. Ledford J.R., King S., Harbin E.R., Zimmerman K.N.. Antecedent Social Skills Interventions for Individuals with ASD: What Works, for Whom, and Under What Conditions?. Focus Autism Other Dev. Disabil. 2018;33:3–13.
    doi: 10.1177/1088357616634024google scholar: lookup
  117. Pustejovsky J.E., Hedges L.V.. Design-comparable effect sizes in Multiple Baseline Designs: A general modeling framework. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2014;39:368–393.
    doi: 10.3102/1076998614547577google scholar: lookup
  118. Scruggs T.E., Mastopieri M.A., Casto G.. The quantitative synthesis of Single-Subject Research: Methodology and validation. Remedial Spec. Educ. 1987;8:24–33.
    doi: 10.1177/074193258700800206google scholar: lookup
  119. Burns M.K., Zaslofsky A.F., Kanive R., Parker D.C.. Meta-Analysis of Incremental Rehearsal Using Phi Coefficients to Compare Single-Case and Group Designs. J. Behav. Educ. 2012;21:185–202.
    doi: 10.1007/s10864-012-9160-2google scholar: lookup
  120. Feuerbacher EN, Wynne CD. Shut up and pet me! Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer petting to vocal praise in concurrent and single-alternative choice procedures.. Behav Processes 2015 Jan;110:47-59.
    doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.019pubmed: 25173617google scholar: lookup
  121. Feuerbacher EN, Wynne CD. Most domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) prefer food to petting: population, context, and schedule effects in concurrent choice.. J Exp Anal Behav 2014 May;101(3):385-405.
    doi: 10.1002/jeab.81pubmed: 24643871google scholar: lookup
  122. Hake DF. The basic-applied continuum and the possible evolution of human operant social and verbal research.. Behav Anal 1982 Spring;5(1):21-8.
    doi: 10.1007/BF03393137pmc: PMC2742021pubmed: 22478554google scholar: lookup
  123. McIlvane WJ. Translational behavior analysis: from laboratory science in stimulus control to intervention with persons with neurodevelopmental disabilities.. Behav Anal 2009 Fall;32(2):273-80.
    doi: 10.1007/BF03392189pmc: PMC2778807pubmed: 22478526google scholar: lookup
  124. Dube W.V.. Translational Research in Behavior Analysis. In: Madden G.J., Dube W.V., Hackenberg T.D., Hanley G.P., Lattal K.A., editors. APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC, USA: 2013. pp. 65–78.
    doi: 10.1037/13937-003google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 4 times.
  1. Fernandez EJ, Martin AL. Applied behavior analysis and the zoo: Forthman and Ogden (1992) thirty years later.. J Appl Behav Anal 2023 Jan;56(1):29-54.
    doi: 10.1002/jaba.969pubmed: 36562615google scholar: lookup
  2. Acebes F, Pellitero JL, Muñiz-Diez C, Loy I. Development of Desirable Behaviors in Dog-Assisted Interventions.. Animals (Basel) 2022 Feb 15;12(4).
    doi: 10.3390/ani12040477pubmed: 35203184google scholar: lookup
  3. Hall NJ, Johnston AM, Bray EE, Otto CM, MacLean EL, Udell MAR. Working Dog Training for the Twenty-First Century.. Front Vet Sci 2021;8:646022.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.646022pubmed: 34386536google scholar: lookup
  4. Jønholt L, Bundgaard CJ, Carlsen M, Sørensen DB. A Case Study on the Behavioural Effect of Positive Reinforcement Training in a Novel Task Participation Test in Göttingen Mini Pigs.. Animals (Basel) 2021 May 29;11(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani11061610pubmed: 34072458google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.