Images Of Dogs "in Drive"

[ness]

I guess that comes down to the dogs inherent willingness to perform. It also gets back to the fact that some dogs do eventually find what they are doing to become rewarding because they have been rewarded so heavily for a particular response it in effect becomes hardwired and the external rewards became a mere byproduct of the process.

Obviously to the how and when a dog will be paid for a particular task is in effect a moving boundary anyway. When a dog is learning a particular behavior they will be paid for smaller approximations of the final product. When a particular behavior is learned they might be rewarded after completing one or they might be rewarded after completing a series. Your reward point will never remain constant but will be used to reinforce what needs reinforcing at a particular moment.

Are you specifically referring to a dog being rewarded for behavior X or a dog being rewarded for completing any behavior to the standard required.

Probably clear as mud .

[corvus]

If you are redefining drive to be "any time a dog anticipates a reward", then yes, any dog can be in "drive", but I think you're just muddying the waters, since that's not how people here use the term.

No, I'm not redefining anything yet. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it. What I think is that drive probably has both anticipation and adrenaline, but I reckon it's more useful in training to aim for an anticipatory state. If you have that much, you can build on it. If you just have adrenaline, it could be utterly useless to you. The Control Unleashed program was basically invented for all the dogs out there with drive to spare and no self control, thus turning them into loose cannons.

I guess you could argue that anticipating a reward is being in drive, just a lower level of drive, but I'm not sure that I buy that.

I don't. Anticipation can exist at low levels, but this is what I was getting at in starting this topic. Some people seemed to be calling anticipation alone drive and some people seemed to be calling adrenaline alone drive. If you're going to train "in drive", that presents a communication problem.

I don't think it's a continuum. I suspect that drive and anticipation are actually qualitatively different states on a physiological level. Drive = always involves adrenaline release. Anticipation = as you say, probably always involves dopamine release. Dogs can be in both states at once, in drive, and anticipating drive satisfaction = adrenaline and dopamine. But not every dog that is anticipating a reward is in drive. And not every dog in drive is anticipating a reward - there are negative drives as well as positive ones!

If drive is so all-encompassing, saying that you're "training in drive" is such a broad statement as to be next to useless as a descriptive term. I mean, negative drive? What's a dog about to bite you out of fear driven by? Do we have fear drive, now? Even that could go several different ways. Anticipation has the same problems. As you say, a dog can be anticipating something without being terribly excited. Furthermore, anticipation of a punishment can heighten the effect of a punishment as much as anticipating a reward can heighten the effect of the reward. You could argue about the details until the cows came home and everyone would probably be right. But what use is that to training?

If you have anticipation AND adrenaline, you're getting more specific. Specific enough to be more useful, anyway. I am assuming the difference between a dog about to flee and a dog about to leap at a toy is obvious enough for it to not warrant any discussion at all. I'm happy to accept that drive does encompass all these varying things the same way that "stress" encompasses a whole suite of very different behaviours, but the thing is that all those different behaviours get names as well. The reason is because "stress" is such a broad term that encompasses so many different things that you inevitably need to be more specific. There's nothing more annoying than being told that your chronic headaches or whatever are caused by "stress". The only time you use that term is either when you're talking about all the states that come under the umbrella of "stress" at once or if you don't actually know what exactly caused the whole thing. So I wonder why we use the term "drive" so specifically when it is such a broad term and for the purposes of training we are talking about a very specific behaviour under the "drive" umbrella.

[JulesP]

Does anyone apart from Corvus think that the term training in drive is next to useless as a descriptive term??

[corvus]

K9: I have noticed that, any time someone questions you you strive off onto another species, if it isn't your Wild Hare its the Zebras in Africa.

Children, Zebras, Hares & Dogs will all have similarities, but they are not the same.

This is because it is what I have been trained to do. Make a statement, seek evidence to back it up. When someone questions it, seek more evidence. Evidence can come from all sorts of places. The beauty of psychology is that the basic principles apply in a lot of different species, especially when we are talking about something as universal as stress responses and anticipatory states. Most of the stuff we know about body chemistry was found out from doing heinous things to rats and mice. And dogs, as it happens. The reason why this awesome book on stress I'm reading is called "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" is because it examines first the similarities we have with other animals and then the differences (then the similarities again). You should read it. It's very easy to understand. :p

Instead of reading paper, as I have mentioned, if you really are keen to learn, grab a leash & go work with many dogs, the answers aren't written on paper, what is written is someone else's answers to their questions.

Guess what? I'm going one better. I'm gonna do both! I start my dog behaviour PhD at the end of March.

iMovie finally decided to acknowledge my latest uploads, so here is a short video of Erik clicker training: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=melsta...u/0/7ecVdvYcaA4

You guys tell me if he's "in drive" and why or why not.

K9: There are moments of drive but your letting (in this clip) the dog decide if it is in drive or not, this will suffer in reliablity I would suggest based on hunger.

First of all, I have no idea what you meant by the bolded section.

Second of all, ah, so my suggestion that my dog clicker training looks much like other dogs "in drive" in this thread, which you said was just because I didn't know enough about it all, is actually kind of accurate after all?

And thirdly, the dog is incapable of "deciding" to be in drive. It's a chemistry thing. Some people say they can only respond to a stimulus in these cases. I prefer to think their emotions trigger their behaviour (in so much as they experience them). Whatever the case, Erik's level of "drive" during clicker training is dependant on how well he knows the exercise. He's only been doing the mat exercise for... I think we must have done about four or five sessions of around 5 minutes max each. The box exercise he's been doing for much longer. Take the box away and his anticipation lessens because his confidence lessens. This is a new situation for him, now. Anticipation comes through "mastery, confidence, and expectation" to quote Sapolsky. It's not just "oh, I might get a reward", but "I know this! I'm definitely getting a reward!". It's easy to create the anticipatory state seen in the box exercise, and all you need is practice and a strong reward history. The stronger it gets, the more anticipation you see. You could view the mat exercise as a drive building exercise. The more I reward, the higher the anticipation associated with the exercise, and the more excited Erik gets when he sees me put the mat on the ground. Thus, he doesn't "decide" when he's going to be in drive. His reward history does, and I'm the one that controls that.

Reliability is just sufficient conditioning.

C: I expect that includes adrenaline AND dopamine.

K9: Ok what makes you expect that? It also means there will be some noise, but it isnt a contributing factor.

Because dogs "in drive" display body language that is consistent with dogs that are anticipating something good and dogs that are adrenalised. I'm picturing a Venn diagram. We know from the suffering (and euphoria) of rats and other creatures that dopamine is key to finding something as stressful as anticipation enjoyable, and we know that an adrenalised state, by definition, requires adrenaline. ;)

Are you saying that internal chemistry is not a contributing factor to behaviour?

Looking at Huskis Daisy the Beagle for example, her natural desire was to be scent driven & ignore all else, where other training aspects pailed, Traing in drive has worked, but 10 years ago, we would have given up when she didnt blast out full of drive every time we looked at her.

Dare I ask what the difference between Daisy training: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7mqImDNPRI and Erik training: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=melsta...u/0/7ecVdvYcaA4 is?

[Staranais]

If drive is so all-encompassing, saying that you're "training in drive" is such a broad statement as to be next to useless as a descriptive term.

Well, only if other very broad terms like "correction" or "reinforcer" or "punisher" are useless too.

Just because a term is a broad term, doesn't mean it's useless. It just means you need other, additional terms if you want to talk in more detail. Like, you could qualify the term "drive" by describing which drive the dog was in, or what level of drive the dog was at, or how the dog was attempting to satisfy the drive.

So I wonder why we use the term "drive" so specifically when it is such a broad term and for the purposes of training we are talking about a very specific behaviour under the "drive" umbrella.

I think there are only a few ways to usefully use drive in training. A dog that's just a tiny bit in drive, or conversely a dog that's so razzed up it literally can't hear what you're saying, or a dog that's adrenalised but terrified of you, are all still in drive, but you can't effectively train them in those states. So when people say they're training in drive, they mean a) the dog is in drive, and b) they're effectively training the dog. So yes, "training in drive" is a more specific concept than a dog just being in drive.

JMO, as always.

[PAX]

I would guess that Daisy is working the TOT, she checks in with Mum before she gets the reward, she's a good girl.

The level Erik is at is totally different, I think he is more operant and drivey, but he is just a baby. :p the two videos can't be compared as they are such different dogs..training, breed, drive, owners, training styles...bla bla .

[Kavik]

I see clicker training (especially shaping) as different to training in drive.

With clicker training, you are right corvus, the excitement comes from the anticipation of the reward once they know and understand the exercise. They get faster and keener on the exercise as their understanding of the exercise builds. But often the beginning of shaping, when they don't know what you want, they are not as keen or fast, and may 'stall out' and stop, look at the handler, sit or drop. They have to offer behaviours on their own without prompting, and will choose those that are reinforced more for that exercise.

With training in drive, you get them razzed up first, then the command is given and they have to control their desire to get the reward by obeying the command rather than jumping for the reward. They learn the fast way to the reward is to comply, not to jump for it and take it themselves.

Both methods produce keen work but I see them as different.

Does that makes sense?

ETA: I use mostly shaping at the moment for agility. I often use a thrown toy reward, which creates more excitement than using food. Here is Kaos weaving

taught a combination of channel/v-weaves and shaping.

So I use a drive reward but do not train the exercise 'in drive'.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Kavik

[angelsun]

Kavik, I agree with your analogy and use that thought process myself. I do not use the word DRIVE however as I think it's a term that is misunderstood and has a far wider definition than the majority of people are willing to understand or give to it.

I also have dogs that traditionally are not 'workers' so their levels or concentration and participation are much different than a herding dog for example. My breeds do not live to please me...they are instinctively designed to be independant workers that do not or will not take instruction to do their task from humans. This makes things VERY different when it comes to training in my opinion.

I"ve been working with GSD's lately and they are a breeze compared with my current and former breeds. Their level of work ethics are simply not something you can compare to my breed.

Drive is subjective...for whatever reason, many trainers seem to feel that unless they 'see' that intensity in the dog during the task, it's not working in 'Drive Mode'. I watch some of my dogs working at their task and they do not have that 'look' we see in many working breeds so does this mean their 'drive' or desire to complete their task is less?

I should also add, that interpreting the look of "drive" is in the eye of the beholder. I have seen many dogs that their owners/trainers proudly proclaim them to have that intense driven look and I'm just not seeing it. I've also seen many dogs work beautifully but with the wrong motivations (in the era where ear pinching and severe corrections promoted obedience through fear) and their handlers brag about how much drive the animal has, and this is why it works so well.

[corvus]

Well, only if other very broad terms like "correction" or "reinforcer" or "punisher" are useless too. :D

"Correction", yes (coming to hate that word), but punisher and reinforcer have fairly specific definitions in psychology. I hate psychology as well , but I like words that have specific definitions. You can spend a lot of time arguing about whether something is punishing or positively or negatively reinforcing, but in the end there's only one right answer. Behaviourism is not the be all and end all, but it's a damn good start.

Just because a term is a broad term, doesn't mean it's useless. It just means you need other, additional terms if you want to talk in more detail. Like, you could qualify the term "drive" by describing which drive the dog was in, or what level of drive the dog was at, or how the dog was attempting to satisfy the drive.

I'm fine with additional terms. Go right ahead. I just don't see them used much, and to be honest, a lot of them are used interchangeably. But that's a whole other debate and one we've already had.

Kavik:With training in drive, you get them razzed up first, then the command is given and they have to control their desire to get the reward by obeying the command rather than jumping for the reward. They learn the fast way to the reward is to comply, not to jump for it and take it themselves.

Both methods produce keen work but I see them as different.

Does that makes sense?

Yes it does, and I mostly agree, only, Erik seriously gets just as razzed up if I pick up a clicker and a bag of treats and say "come on, Erik" than if I pick up a tug toy and say "ready?" He gets razzed up really easily. He does different things once he is razzed up, but that's a matter of conditioning. He's been conditioned to give a down when I say "ready" and so that's what he does. But I haven't conditioned him to do anything before clicker training, so he tends to dance around and bark and jump on me until I give him some kind of cue to tell him what we're going to be doing. I really think maybe it's more about the reward and the activity.

Actually, now that I think about it, Erik's changing all the time. He gets more razzed for toys, now, but he gets as razzed for clicker training as he did for toys, say, a couple of months ago. But both are ever increasing. It's just a matter of what we've been doing more lately.

The more I read about stress hormones and the effects of stress on the body the more I think drive and outright bad stress are perilously close together (the same thing if we use drive as an umbrella term!) and the more I want to be careful how I go with my dogs. Incidentally, the book I'm reading emphasises that dopamine is the hormone that is responsible for stress that feels good. It comes into play only for crazy, intense, passionate pleasure, and while adrenalin may or may not appear, dopamine determines if it will be a good adrenalin rush or a bad one. Everyday pleasure involves different chemicals all together.

Sapolsky also says the stress response is beautifully linear and tightly associated with how stressful a stressor is. So it's not just are you adrenalised or are you not. You can be a little adrenalised, or a lot adrenalised, or very stressed but not adrenalised at all, or any number of individual variations. Each stressor someone experiences has its own stress response signature, in that it produces a particular cocktail of chemicals that are the same each time. There are a few tricky exceptions, but for the most part it's all very, very specific. Interesting stuff!

I'm not sure if you meant to agree with me, Angelsun, but yeah, that's pretty much what I've been thinking. :D

[Kavik]

I'm trying to figure out how to say what I mean :D

It is not just that they are razzed up - Kaos also gets razzed up when I bring out the clicker. It is about how it is used and what is expected of the dog. With the clicker in shaping, you really want the dog to work it out with no help from you, sometimes involving interacting with other objects, sometimes at a distance or moving away from the handler. Handler is not necessarily the focus of the exercise. When using a Training in Drive program as I understand it, it is more about quick, enthusiastic obedience and control to a command normally close to the handler and giving handler focus. Quite different in how it is applied.

[corvus]

I think see what you're saying, Kavik. Different activities, different behaviour. There's no way you could take Erik clicker training and Erik playing tug, put them next to each other out of context, and say that they are the same. But you could say that there are several marked similarities in the body language, and you could say that the moments before clicker training or tug commences they look extremely similar. I was using that as a guide, just kind of thinking about anticipation and where it goes and what it looks like in different contexts.

To be totally honest, I think this is more about a particular state than a particular activity, or even a particular way of working. I think that while you can probably tell that state through basic body language (ears, eyes, muscle tension, characteristic movements), you maybe can't tell it by the way it is used. That sounds like a contradiction of myself even to me, so bear with me a moment.

The way I see it, "training in drive" is mostly about the state of the dog rather than the actual training. So how do you tell the state? You would have to forget the activity and concentrate on fairly characteristic body language. I really think it's there in the ears and the eyes and muscle tension and tail, but I see this is where it gets subjective like Angelsun was saying. It's difficult to argue a point about something that is subjective in the first place. So I respectfully disagree, but can totally see your perspective on this one. It does kind of matter to the discussion that there be a right and wrong, yet I don't think there is.

[Longcoat]

I think see what you're saying, Kavik. Different activities, different behaviour. There's no way you could take Erik clicker training and Erik playing tug, put them next to each other out of context, and say that they are the same. But you could say that there are several marked similarities in the body language, and you could say that the moments before clicker training or tug commences they look extremely similar. I was using that as a guide, just kind of thinking about anticipation and where it goes and what it looks like in different contexts.

To be totally honest, I think this is more about a particular state than a particular activity, or even a particular way of working. I think that while you can probably tell that state through basic body language (ears, eyes, muscle tension, characteristic movements), you maybe can't tell it by the way it is used. That sounds like a contradiction of myself even to me, so bear with me a moment.

The way I see it, "training in drive" is mostly about the state of the dog rather than the actual training. So how do you tell the state? You would have to forget the activity and concentrate on fairly characteristic body language. I really think it's there in the ears and the eyes and muscle tension and tail, but I see this is where it gets subjective like Angelsun was saying. It's difficult to argue a point about something that is subjective in the first place. So I respectfully disagree, but can totally see your perspective on this one. It does kind of matter to the discussion that there be a right and wrong, yet I don't think there is.

Drive as I understand it I agree is the "state of the dog", the desire to do something. Many people teach their dogs words or sentences like, "go for a walk, go for a ride etc" and the dog runs around squeals and barks like a mad thing anticipating a walk or ride in the car and is in a state of drive from my perspective. Training in drive to me could be gaining obedience whilst in this state of arousal like opening the car door and making the dog sit and wait for a release to get in the car.

I taught my GSD to jump which I believe was done in drive. Jumping is one exercise that is easier to achieve when the dog has the passion to jump and wants to do it. As soon as I mention the word "jump", he immediately switches into drive, his ears go forward, neck stretched up and tail out anticipating what he will jump over. The reward in this exercise is allowing him to perform the jump itself, the physical challenge is satisfying for the dog it seems. There is a distinct difference in the level of enthusiasm depending on the physical challenge of the jump. He will jump anything, but a small jump, a foot off the ground doesn't create the level of drive and adrenaline as jumping a higher jump or his favorite jump which is over an old car body or the Schutzhund A frame which is 6 feet high. The dog becomes an adrenaline junkie to physical challenges

Edited January 23, 2010 by Longcoat

[Kavik]

I think see what you're saying, Kavik. Different activities, different behaviour. There's no way you could take Erik clicker training and Erik playing tug, put them next to each other out of context, and say that they are the same. But you could say that there are several marked similarities in the body language, and you could say that the moments before clicker training or tug commences they look extremely similar. I was using that as a guide, just kind of thinking about anticipation and where it goes and what it looks like in different contexts.

To be totally honest, I think this is more about a particular state than a particular activity, or even a particular way of working. I think that while you can probably tell that state through basic body language (ears, eyes, muscle tension, characteristic movements), you maybe can't tell it by the way it is used. That sounds like a contradiction of myself even to me, so bear with me a moment.

The way I see it, "training in drive" is mostly about the state of the dog rather than the actual training. So how do you tell the state? You would have to forget the activity and concentrate on fairly characteristic body language. I really think it's there in the ears and the eyes and muscle tension and tail, but I see this is where it gets subjective like Angelsun was saying. It's difficult to argue a point about something that is subjective in the first place. So I respectfully disagree, but can totally see your perspective on this one. It does kind of matter to the discussion that there be a right and wrong, yet I don't think there is.

But if you are trying to define 'Training in Drive' and what makes it different to other training (which I think is what you are trying to do?) then the way of working is important. The way the drive reward is manipulated and the self control the dog exhibits by doing the command is how this method works. It is a method, does not have the monopoly of utilising drive in dog training. If you are describing a method, you have to look at the method, not just that it uses 'drive'.

I think dogs can certainly be 'in drive' with other forms of training - agility is not taught the same way as the 'training in drive' methods, but you can certainly tell if the dogs are 'in drive' while on course or waiting their turn. Same with flyball.

This thread has been a discussion on what a dog looks like 'in drive', the fact that drive can be positive or negative, and what is usually defined as 'training in drive'

I'm not sure what you are wanting people to discuss or get at? What are you trying to say?

[Kavik]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I am talking about dog training, the use of drives in dog training, what is commonly meant by 'training in drive', how this is different to other methods like shaping.

I am not sure what you are talking about

[corvus]

Wow, I'm getting confused.

It's like there's Training in Drive, a particular method, and training a dog whilst it is in drive, not a particular method. I was talking about the latter.

I've been trying to get at two things: what a dog in drive looks like and what people mean when they say they are training in drive. And I guess how the two come together. I know what I think it looks like, and everyone else knows what they think it looks like, but how do we all know that what we think it looks like is the same as what everyone else thinks it looks like? That's all.

But hey, I was reading Roger Abrantes' "The Evolution of Canine Social Behaviour" last night and Abrantes uses "drive" and "motivation" and has quite simple and specific definitions for both.

Drive is a life-implicit energy, an urge onwards, a basic need, a compulsive energy

He goes on to categorise drive on exactly what basic need is being met by the activity. Eg. Fear drive, aggressive drive, sex drive, food drive. No adrenalin, no dopamine, no anticipation. Just an urge that gets them doing something until they fulfill that urge.

Motivation is what prompts an animal to do something.

[Kavik]

Ah, OK

I assumed you were talking about 'training in drive' the method.

"He goes on to categorise drive on exactly what basic need is being met by the activity. Eg. Fear drive, aggressive drive, sex drive, food drive. No adrenalin, no dopamine, no anticipation. Just an urge that gets them doing something until they fulfill that urge"

Yep that is the definition I learned too

[m-j]

Drive is a life-implicit energy, an urge onwards, a basic need, a compulsive energy

He goes on to categorise drive on exactly what basic need is being met by the activity. Eg. Fear drive, aggressive drive, sex drive, food drive. No adrenalin, no dopamine, no anticipation. Just an urge that gets them doing something until they fulfill that urge.

Motivation is what prompts an animal to do something.

This confuses me when it comes to prey drive being a fixed action pattern there are several stages to prey drive, stalk, run pounce. I have been told/read (can't remember where from) that for an animal to complete this sequence (brain circuit) they need adrenaline as a buffer against slight pain as they need to ignore pain as it may stop them from catching their dinner.

The same can be said for defense drive (as in fight or flight) to feel pain and worry about it could cause them to die if in a fight or fleeing from something. Or have I completely missed the point Maybe he is saying that drive is a fleeting moment of emotion bought about by a stimulus to make the body prepare for action. This to me would be drive initialization Terminology interpretation sheesh

cheers

M-J

[Kelpie-i]

Motivation is what prompts an animal to do something.

Isn't this what I posted earlier

[Longcoat]

Drive is a life-implicit energy, an urge onwards, a basic need, a compulsive energy

He goes on to categorise drive on exactly what basic need is being met by the activity. Eg. Fear drive, aggressive drive, sex drive, food drive. No adrenalin, no dopamine, no anticipation. Just an urge that gets them doing something until they fulfill that urge.

Motivation is what prompts an animal to do something.

This confuses me when it comes to prey drive being a fixed action pattern there are several stages to prey drive, stalk, run pounce. I have been told/read (can't remember where from) that for an animal to complete this sequence (brain circuit) they need adrenaline as a buffer against slight pain as they need to ignore pain as it may stop them from catching their dinner.

The same can be said for defense drive (as in fight or flight) to feel pain and worry about it could cause them to die if in a fight or fleeing from something. Or have I completely missed the point ;) Maybe he is saying that drive is a fleeting moment of emotion bought about by a stimulus to make the body prepare for action. This to me would be drive initialization Terminology interpretation sheesh

cheers

M-J

M-J, I don't really get it either

Excitement, adrenaline, drive whatever to me has the result of the dog wanting to perform a physical activity which is all that matters in the end. I was thinking about this earlier this evening hand watering in the backyard and my GSD goes nuts over the hose and bounces around like a fool when the hose comes out wanting to bite at the water. He has "hose drive" if you like , but placing him in sit to watch me hosing away, his front feet are bouncing, he's puffing and his body shaking with what I don't really know???, but on the release word from the sit, he lunges at the water stream with total vigor and will out and sit again through the same process until the release to re-engage the water again. To me it's a drive function and a training process during major distraction. The harder you work him like this, the greater the vigor he produces.

[m-j]

LC

Excitement, adrenaline, drive whatever to me has the result of the dog wanting to perform a physical activity which is all that matters in the end.

Yes I agree. Call it what you want as long as the dog is having fun.

cheers

M-J

Edited January 25, 2010 by m-j