Dog-friendly Anti Bark Training Device

[poodlefan]

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).

However, in this case I'm not asking the dog to perform a desired behaviour. I'm reinforcing it NOT performing an undesired behaviour. We're not putting silence on cue here.

If the device is only producing treats a few times a day, I don't see how a dog is meant to link barking with a treat not being produced minutes or hours later??

[Aidan3]

However, in this case I'm not asking the dog to perform a desired behaviour. I'm reinforcing it NOT performing an undesired behaviour.

The [undeveloped] idea I put forward of using a token system would punish barking by response cost (-P), and reward spending time in the kennel. You can't reinforce the absence of behaviour, you can only reinforce other behaviours that are absent of the unwanted behaviour.

If the device is only producing treats a few times a day, I don't see how a dog is meant to link barking with a treat not being produced minutes or hours later??

You would have to condition the token system, but that's not the issue as it's not difficult. The learning bit is not the problem, the problem is that for this system to be worth pursuing (i.e better than what we already have) I think it really needs to address the underlying problems, which it doesn't.

[Online Pets]

I have voted for your idea, however i dont think it will be effective as it is. It will need a lot of improvements and development to make it market ready.

[critters]

I wouldn't want my dog recieving treats at random intervills because what happens if my dog is doing something I don't want it doing at the moment it gets reinforced for?

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.

However, in this case I'm not asking the dog to perform a desired behaviour. I'm reinforcing it NOT performing an undesired behaviour.

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.

the problem is that for this system to be worth pursuing (i.e better than what we already have) I think it really needs to address the underlying problems, which it doesn't.

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?

I have voted for your idea, however i dont think it will be effective as it is. It will need a lot of improvements and development to make it market ready.

Thanks!! Yes, no idea is perfect when first suggested, but I have a lot of confidence that we can get it there

[Aidan3]

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?

No, spray and shock collars do not address the underlying cause.

Anti-bark devices (including your device) are justifiable in reducing barking, especially learned or self-rewarding barking, and especially where the owner has no choice but to quickly reduce barking for the sake of the dog. I would choose a spray or shock collar for this purpose because it works very quickly.

The problem is where people take the option of buying a collar and ignore the underlying problems. The collar is effective, so they have no motivation to address the underlying problem. This is a serious ethical concern and unfortunately, on the whole, no anti-bark device really addresses this problem on it's own.

[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