Clicker Training Accelerates Learning of Complex Behaviors but Reduces Discriminative Abilities of Yucatan Miniature Pigs

Simple Summary Animal training is intended to teach specific behavioral responses to specific requests. Clicker Training (CT) is a method to train animals based on the use of a device that emits a sound to be associated as a marker that predicts the delivery of something wanted (food). It is believed that CT decreases training time compared to other types of training that use different markers, such as voice. Herein, we used two-month-old miniature piglets to assess whether CT decreased the number of repeats required to learn complex behaviors compared to voice-trained animals. Furthermore, we compared the number of correct choices of animals from both groups when tested for the discrimination of objects. The results indicated that CT decreased the number of repetitions required to learn to fetch an object but reduced the animals’ ability to make correct decisions during discriminatory trials compared to voice-trained animals. This suggests that CT is more efficient than voice in teaching complex behaviors but reduces the ability of animals to use the cognitive processes necessary to discriminate and select objects associated with reward. Animal trainers might consider our results to decide which marker is to be implemented based on the aim and purpose of the training. Abstract Animal training is meant to teach specific behavioral responses to specific cues. Clicker training (CT) is a popular training method based on the use of a device that emits a sound of double-click to be associated as a first-order conditioned stimulus in contingency with positive reinforcements. After some repetitions, the clicker sound gains some incentive value and can be paired with the desired behavior. Animal trainers believed that CT can decrease training time compared to other types of training. Herein, we used two-month old miniature piglets to evaluate whether CT decreased the number of repetitions required to learn complex behaviors as compared with animals trained with voice instead of the clicker. In addition, we compared the number of correct choices of animals from both groups when exposed to object discriminative tests. Results indicated that CT decreased the number of repetitions required for pigs to learn to fetch an object but reduced the ability of animals to make correct choices during the discriminate trials. This suggests that CT is more efficient than voice to teach complex behaviors but reduces the ability of animals to use cognitive processes required to discriminate and select objects associated with reward.

[1]  A. K. Hansen,et al.  The use of pigs in neuroscience: Modeling brain disorders , 2007, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[2]  K. Lattal Delayed reinforcement of operant behavior. , 2010, Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior.

[3]  R. Brill Animal training: successful animal management through positive reinforcement , 2000 .

[4]  B. Skinner,et al.  The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis , 2016 .

[5]  M. Kaufman,et al.  Positive Reinforcement Training in Squirrel Monkeys Using Clicker Training , 2012, American journal of primatology.

[6]  R. Lubow,et al.  Latent inhibition: the effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. , 1959, Journal of comparative and physiological psychology.

[7]  L. C. Feng,et al.  Is clicker training (Clicker + food) better than food-only training for novice companion dogs and their owners? , 2018 .

[8]  H. Tanida,et al.  The ability of miniature pigs to discriminate between a stranger and their familiar handler , 1998 .

[9]  B. F. Skinner,et al.  How to teach animals. , 1951 .

[10]  Shawn M. Smith,et al.  Clicker increases resistance to extinction but does not decrease training time of a simple operant task in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) , 2008 .

[11]  K. Smetana,et al.  The Miniature Pig as an Animal Model in Biomedical Research , 2005, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  A. S. Griffin,et al.  Inference by exclusion in the red-tailed black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii). , 2019, Integrative zoology.

[13]  G. Grice The relation of secondary reinforcement to delayed reward in visual discrimination learning. , 1948, Journal of experimental psychology.

[14]  T. Stokes,et al.  Discrimination and generalization. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[15]  T. Friend,et al.  The efficacy of a secondary reinforcer (clicker) during acquisition and extinction of an operant task in horses , 2004 .

[16]  Comparison of positive reinforcement training in cats: A pilot study , 2017 .

[17]  R. Byrne,et al.  Pig cognition , 2010, Current Biology.

[18]  F. J. van der Staay,et al.  The pig as a model animal for studying cognition and neurobehavioral disorders. , 2011, Current topics in behavioral neurosciences.

[19]  Comparing trainers’ reports of clicker use to the use of clickers in applied research studies: methodological differences may explain conflicting results , 2017 .

[20]  P. Hemsworth,et al.  Stimulus generalization: the inability of pigs to discriminate between humans on the basis of their previous handling experience , 1994 .

[21]  Gerd Nürnberg,et al.  Learning to learn during visual discrimination in group housed dwarf goats (Capra hircus). , 2007, Journal of comparative psychology.

[22]  T. Bugnyar,et al.  Inference by Exclusion in Goffin Cockatoos (Cacatua goffini) , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  H. Bleckmann,et al.  Visual discrimination and object categorization in the cichlid Pseudotropheus sp. , 2012, Animal Cognition.

[24]  Practices and perceptions of clicker use in dog training: A survey‐based investigation of dog owners and industry professionals , 2018 .

[25]  T. Suddendorf,et al.  Inferential reasoning by exclusion in great apes, lesser apes, and spider monkeys. , 2011, Journal of comparative psychology.

[26]  Angie Koban,et al.  Rotational object discrimination by pigeons. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[27]  B A Williams,et al.  Conditioned Reinforcement: Experimental and Theoretical Issues , 1994, The Behavior analyst.

[28]  C. Mccall,et al.  Equine utilization of secondary reinforcement during response extinction and acquisition , 2002 .

[29]  Steven R. Lindsay Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training, Volume Three , 2000 .

[30]  R. Byrne,et al.  Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value , 2005, Animal Cognition.

[31]  C. Chiandetti,et al.  Can clicker training facilitate conditioning in dogs , 2016 .

[32]  Board on Agriculture,et al.  Nutrient requirements of swine , 1964 .

[33]  C. Schloegl,et al.  African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) use inference by exclusion to find hidden food , 2011, Biology Letters.

[34]  L. C. Feng,et al.  How clicker training works: Comparing Reinforcing, Marking, and Bridging Hypotheses , 2016 .

[35]  Emiliana R. Simon-Thomas,et al.  The voice conveys specific emotions: evidence from vocal burst displays. , 2009, Emotion.

[36]  Heidi L. Marsh,et al.  Inference by exclusion in lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus), a hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas), capuchins (Sapajus apella), and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus). , 2015, Journal of comparative psychology.

[37]  L. Huber,et al.  Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans , 2008, Animal Cognition.