critters

Cheers for clarifying that, and I agree. It would be 1000 times better if all anti-bark devices were only available through vets (and maybe certified trainers, not that there is any main authority governing who is "certified"). P.S I obviously managed to delete a chunk of the sentence you've quoted there, and it was meant to read something along the lines of "... and the better method is directly determining the cause and dealing with it instead of the barking?", if you couldn't work that out yourself

This has been discussed previously, and I've admitted it may be a problem. Aidan's suggestion of a token system could largely reduce the problem (especially if tokens are only awarded when the dog is in a specified area, such as its kennel or bed, so there's less chance of a token being awarded when the dog is doing something inappropriate). Even with the original idea, a dog will need to be rewarded more than once while doing something (and for most dogs, many times) before it connects the reward to the behaviour. It may try again a couple of times after a single reward, but will quickly realise that it doesn't work (unless there is an unusual coincidence). If you think about it, in any environment a dog is going to come across millions of little rewards; it finds a tasty bug in the garden while digging, a cat jumps over the fence while the dog is chewing on the decorative plants and the dog gets to chase it, the sun comes out from behind a cloud and warms a chilly dog weeing on the kid's playset, the owner pulls into the driveway just as the dog scratches the flyscreen, and so on and so on and so on. If these coincidental nice things were enough to teach a dog to do inappropriate behaviours more often we'd all be screwed! There can't be that much harm in adding some controlled rewards to the endless supply of uncontrollable rewards a dog has access to. But that's not to say coincidences don't happen, and especially with quick-to-learn dogs they may get the wrong message. True, it is -P not +R, but either way the dog learns, from when treats were more frequent, that "I might get a reward if..." and "I won't get a reward if the other...". Classical conditioning is also involved in the original idea- the dog is conditioned to be rewarded by the visual state of the device as it is despensing treats, and punished by the alternative visual state. Thus even if no treats are popping out, the visual state is still rewarding. I agree that the underlying problems should be addressed, and this method doesn't (unless the only issue is a bit of anxiety, and that anxiety is relieved by treats), but I am wondering if you are implying that spray and shock collars DO address the underlying problem, or if you are arguing that they should also be avoided is directly determining the cause and dealing with it instead of the barking? Thanks!! Yes, no idea is perfect when first suggested, but I have a lot of confidence that we can get it there

Just as with any training method that uses food rewards (correctly), you gradually ask the dog to perform better and better for the same amount of reward, and it works. Once the desired behaviour becomes habit, and the dog enjoys the desired behaviour for its own sake, then it is quite happy to perform really well for only a tiny reward. You wouldn't jump straight to that level of behaviour, though - you start with treats every second, then every 5 seconds, 10 seconds... ...10 minutes... ...2h, 3h, 4h, 6h, 8h, none. I can't guess at how long this will take most dogs and how big the time steps can be without testing it out, but that's the general idea. In theory the dog will be used to the treats coming out at whatever time interval it is up to, and thus go off to do other things while it waits (but knowing that if it barks, then the next treat won't come).

Sorry, I wasn't that clear. I think that a token system that Aidan and I briefly discussed is what would come across as "ridiculous" to some people, even though it could be a better training system than my original idea. The original device is specifically designed to be phased out; as barking improves, the time between treats and the time after a bark til the treats resume increases, until the dog is just getting a few treats a day and none at all if it barks, and then no treats at all. Leave the device on the wall for a couple of weeks after it stops spitting out treats, and then take it away - really much the same technique as phasing out food in any training method. I believe this device would tackle the problem just as well if not better than a spray collar. How does a spray collar fix the problem? My understanding of them is that they simply distract the dog from barking, which eventually leads to a habit change but does not tackle any underlying reason for barking. My device does similar, but can also act to relieve anxiety which may (or may not) be causing the barking. I am quite curious about spray collars, though. All the spray collars I have seen for sale advertise that the spray is unpleasant for the dog and thus punishes barking - but I have heard Ian Dunbar say this is a misunderstanding and that the dogs actually like the spray (and that the collars work even better if it is a nice smell like liver or cheese) and, because they need to stop barking to sniff, are rewarded for stopping barking. If he's right (and I'm inclined to believe him since he has done a lot of research in canine olfaction!) then I would be quite keen on promoting cheesey livery spray collars. But if that's correct, why are there only citronella and lemon type collars on the market and why do they claim to be aversive? What scent was the collar you had success with?

It sounds like a plan with a lot of promise, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done to work out details. The big one would be finding the most effective way to condition and maintain tokens - and preferably methods simple enough that the average dog owner is able to use them correctly. There's also the issue of convincing people that it works- I imagine a lot of people thinking it a ridiculous idea that personifies dogs to the extreme.

If you look at what pigeons do when they are put in a Skinner box and non-contingently reinforced on an FI schedule, you'll see what I mean. Skinner called it "superstitious behaviour". Going off studies of this paradigm (FI with a response cost contingency) I suspect you'll be more likely to end up with superstitious behaviours than reduction of unwanted behaviour. You could probably test your hypothesis with a Manners Minder, hiding out inside to trigger the machine on a schedule. See if it works or not. OK... can we come up with a solution to this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635705000288 Interesting. What exactly are you suggesting with that article? I'm picturing an array of lights, which are pre-conditioned to be token reinforcers, and each time a dog barks one goes out. When owner comes home, they give the dog as many treats as there are lights still on (thus reducing the possibility of rewarding the wrong behaviours, and the total amount of food needed to last the day). Perhaps the lights gradually come back on after periods of silence, so that the dog doesn't use them all up and then go bark-mad. Obvious issue is maintaining the effectiveness of the token system. Are you suggesting the article because you have used or know of work with dogs using token reinforcers?

If you look at what pigeons do when they are put in a Skinner box and non-contingently reinforced on an FI schedule, you'll see what I mean. Skinner called it "superstitious behaviour". Going off studies of this paradigm (FI with a response cost contingency) I suspect you'll be more likely to end up with superstitious behaviours than reduction of unwanted behaviour. You could probably test your hypothesis with a Manners Minder, hiding out inside to trigger the machine on a schedule. See if it works or not. OK... can we come up with a solution to this? What if the reward was contingent FI - the dog triggers something to get the reward, but it doesn't work if the dog has recently barked? Admittedly this is probably more likely to result in obsessive behaviours, though again most dogs should decrease their response on an FI schedule until a reward is due. What if it was a fully interactive device like a treat ball, that could stop working when the dog barks? Tricky when mixing dogs and electronics... what if the device is mounted out of reach and has a home-alone-style-toy hanging from it, and as the dog pulls on the toy treats are dispensed from up top (unless, of course, the dog has recently barked)?

This would (hopefully) be achieved in the initial training phases where the treats are coming out almost constantly. The dog is going to be close to the device, and thus will hear and see the cues. It might be that you need to set the dog up to fail (eg, if they speak on command, ask them to speak. Otherwise ring the door bell or show them a cat or anything else that will set them off barking while they are in close proximity to the device) a few times during this initial phase to help them make the association. Unless you have a few acres, a dog with normal hearing is going to hear it! There's no need for it to be an unpleasant and annoying noise, and certainly no worse than barking, so neighbours aren't going to be too upset even if they can hear it too. Thanks for bringing this up as it is an important point that I wasn't clear about. The initial training phase sessions would need to be quite short, and the owner should be present to ensure it is working as intended. Hopefully you'd then be able to move quite quickly onto a longer time interval between treats to stretch them out across the whole day. That's an interesting idea, and I don't know of any studies that have looked into it (I'm inclined to go look), but it is VERY intuitive that -ve punishment is preferable to +ve. What would you prefer, that I give you $1 every hour until you say something that disagrees with me, or that I give you nothing and when you disagree with me I yell at you/zap you/spray you with something foul? This is the same concern as the other posters, and so is obviously an important one. In your hypothetical, though, I would ask why on earth you purchased an anti-bark device for a quiet dog with a completely different behavioural problem :p Since the dog gets the same level of reward when it is digging as when it is not digging, it isn't actually that likely to be reinforced. You could equally well argue that a warm, sunny, pleasant day or any other basic comfort reinforces the dog's digging, if they happen to coincide.

It does sound like the device wouldn't suit your dogs. But imagine if you had a different dog, that was a little dopey and slow to learn (ie needed to see a lizard in the same spot 100 times before making any connection), and loved barking just to hear his own voice, and didn't share a house with other dogs... could it work? Again, sincere apologies about the low blow. I completely misjudged you given there wasn't any context or reasoning behind your comment- my initial interpretation was that you were one of "those" people who think if you give a dog too many treats they won't "respect" you.

A FI schedule is a non-contingent schedule. This is fine in a Skinner box, but not so good when your dog could be doing almost anything. For the record, Kavik uses a lot of food in her training so she is past the sort of objections you were anticipating. My suggestion was for your machine to do this. I have taught quite a lot of people to shape their dog's barking. It's really very simple compared to a lot of other things dog owners routinely teach their dogs. Even in a random environment, an FI schedule means that a dog doesn't get rewarded any more if it is doing an unrelated "bad" thing than when it isn't doing it, so it's highly unlikely that the "bad" thing will be reinforced. Yes there's a possibility of a few coincidences causing the dog to learn the wrong thing, but it's just as likely that random environmental factors will reinforce that behaviour. The dog should learn that the only thing that changes the state of the device, is barking or not barking. I say should... it really is hard to tell for certain without testing it on real dogs in real environments. It would be great if a machine could shape barking. Maybe something to consider, but I expect it could be too complex for the Quirky system (they don't deal with any complex programing, and it would need to be pretty complex to compute bark duration, number of barks, intensity, etc and reward appropriately). Maybe if it fails at Quirky but somebody likes the idea enough to invest a lot of money in it... hehe. It's great that you've managed to help a lot of people with barking (I'm the sort of person who tends to be pretty good with the dogs... less so with the people). But the people you are helped are those that have come to you (a trainer? Have they even paid for your help? I don't know your background so don't know if you're talking about friends or clients). Other people won't seek a trainer's help before walking into their local pet shop and buying a shock collar (they're straight off the shelf here in WA, I know some other states have better restrictions), so I'm really hoping to have this as a competing product on the shelf next to the shock collars.

Your reasons are quite valid reasons why this device might not suit you and your dogs, but don't really argue against "Getting treats all day long". - If you're the sort of person who uses most of your dog's food in training, rather than dull meals, it's unlikely you have barking problems! If you did have barking problems, you could still split your dog's food between active training rewards and the device in whatever way suits you. - I think it really depends on the dog if they will sit by the device all day or wander and play between treats; the benefit of a fixed interval schedule means when the dog has a treat, it knows that it's not going to get another one for a little while and can thus go play (basic Skinner box stuff - if a rat gets treats from pressing a bar on a fixed interval, it will learn not to bother pressing the bar for a while after its last treat). - I admit that the device will not be nearly as useful for multi-dog households as single dog households, but isn't it the case with any training situation that 2 dogs are thrice as much work as 1 dog I know the comment was pretty insulting, that's pretty much what I was apologising for, but it really does seem that if you don't want your dog getting treats all day you just don't want it to be happy. Would the same person not leave their dog with a stuffed kong, or a good bone, or other long-lasting treat? It's absurd. Regarding treat balls and other doggy entertainment, they're fantastic, but many dogs will go chew-chew-BARK-chew-chew-BARK, because after barking the ball will still be full of treats. Not to mention, the longest I have been able to get my Dane's 5-cups-of-kibble breakfast to last is about an hour, and that's using the slowest release treat balls and frozen soaked-kibble stuff toys, so for some dogs it's not a day-long solution!

I'd also like to make a point for any fence-sitters: Voting for the idea gives it a chance of moving onto the next step, but is not making any sort of commitment (you can even vote on as many other ideas on the site as you like). Even if you don't think the idea is perfect, your vote gives us the opportunity to move it to the next step at which point the community discuss all the aspects of the product to ensure that a) it really is a viable idea and b) all the features of the final design are as good as they can be. Maybe you're not convinced it will work, but maybe.... well there's only one way to find out, and that's get some prototypes! As much as I wish I had the skills and resources to make my own prototype (or the time to sit around for hours and be a manual version of the device!), the only real chance we have of being able to test out the idea to be sure is to VOTE!

WHY do you not want a dog to get treats all day long if it is being good? Because it will get fat? Take the treats used in the device out of the dog's ordinary meals, and it will be eating the same amount as always Because it will get spoiled? Spoiling only occurs when rewards (or punishments) are given out haphazardly. A dog that gets a lot of treats, only when it is doing the right thing, will never become "spoiled". Because it will come to rely on constant treats? I agree, but if you read the description on the quirky site, the device is designed to gradually phase out treats as barking is reduced, so you will not need them in the long term. Because your dog won't respect you? Yeah..... no. Because treats make your dog happy, and you don't want your dog to be happy while you are out, which is why you also lock him/her outside in the rain and cold with no protection, don't take it for walks, don't provide it with a comfy bed or kennel? Sorry, I mean no disrespect, but I cannot think of one reason to not want your dog to get a lot of treats when it is being good that makes any sense! Aidan2: Thanks for your reply. I have actually emailed this idea to Dunbar/DSD this morning so am looking forward to his/their response. I haven't heard about his work on bark shaping that you describe so it will be interesting to find out about it. The only problem with the sort of shaping that you describe is that it can be really tricky to convince the average dog owner to put in the work, and for them to get it right. It would be great if every dog owner were a training expert, but they're not, and they like quick-fixes and fancy devices... like shock collars I absolutely agree that working out the cause of barking and any other problem behaviour should be the first step. That's one of the big pros I consider in training using negative rather than positive punishment - a dog isn't going to mask pain or genuine anxiety just for one more treat, but they might do so to avoid a shock. So you can reduce barking that the dog does for recreational purposes, but will still know when the dog really wants to tell you something. I also anticipate that the device would have an added benefit of reducing separation anxiety, and to an extent providing entertainment, and thus reduce some of the reasons the dog is barking in the first place.

I am hoping that quirky could make the bark detector the same collar-style as is used on shock and spray collars, but wirelessly linked to the device. That would make distinguishing between dogs simple. Alternatively the device might be programable to certain sensitivities and frequencies that match your dog, but that's tricky and prone to be less reliable. The only other option would be to get your neighbour to use one to train their dog first For multi-dog households it may be necessary to separate dogs during initial training. It may still work with one device between many dogs, but less reliably, and it might only be one dog that gets any of the treats

If you haven't already, please read the full description of how the device works on the link in the OP. It works via negative punishment; taking away a good thing to reduce the frequency or intensity of a behaviour (barking). The treats are dispensed at fixed intervals, so the dog can reliably expect them to pop out at a steady rate. When the treats stop, the immediately preceding behaviour is punished. Visual and auditory cues will allow the dog to associate barking with the treats stopping. As for fat dogs, the device will be designed to be loaded with the dog's meal kibble or general diet, so no fatties!