7/31/2019 Creighton E 2007 Equine Learning Behaviour Limits of
Ability and Ability Limits of Trainers
1/2
Behavioural Processes 76 (2007) 4344
Commentary
Equine learning behaviour: Limits ofability and ability limits
of trainers
Emma Creighton
Chester Centre for Stress Research, Department of Biological
Sciences,
University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK
Received 13 November 2006; accepted 13 November 2006
Towards the end of their review, Murphy and Arkins (2007)
point out that for horses to successfully adapt to domestic
life,they must learn to suppress instinctive responses and learn
alter-
native behaviour that is acceptable to their trainers and that
fits
within the constraints of the domestic environment. We ask a
lot
from a plains living prey species when we bring it into the
con-
fines of a stable, askit suppress its fleeinstincts andinstead
learn
to problem solve the commands of its riders. Yet, as Murphy
and Arkins (2007) acknowledge, despite the high economic and
companion value humans place on their horses, there is sur-
prisingly low levels of understanding of the learning ability
of
horses, and there is lamentably scant evidence of knowledge
and application of the principles of learning by their
trainers
(McClean and McGreevy, 2004).Murphy and Arkins (2007) introduce
us to Thomas (1986)
hierarchy of learning ability (Table 1), which provides a
frame-
work for hanging research evidence to support a review of
learning abilities in horses. Thefirst three levels of this
hierarchy
are the basic building blocks of horse training. (1) Habitation
to
environmental stimuli to suppress instinctive flee responses
so
horses are safe to manage and ride; and sensitisation to
cues
given as aids. (2) Classical conditioning of commands to
uncon-
ditional stimuli to elicit a desired response is an essential
part of
training, for example substituting a voice command for a
flick
of a lunging whip. (3) Simple operant conditioning of desir-
able responses is usually based upon negative reinforcement,
with positive reinforcement of the desired behavioural
response
and punishment of the undesirable from the range of
potential
responses made by the horse.
The fourth learning ability level, chaining operant
responses,
forms part of more advanced training where the horse is asked
to
perform a series of moves before being reinforced. Good
trainers
Tel.: +44 1244 513046; fax: +44 1244 511346.
E-mail address: [email protected].
are clearly able to achieve this as evidenced by dressage
maneu-
vers; indicating that this type of learning is also within
theanimals scope, though there may be some doubt over the
ability
of all trainers to achieve such operant chains.
Beyond a treatment of the largely discredited concept of
foal
imprinting, Murphy and Arkins (2007) mostly skip over these
four steps in the hierarchy, perhaps because at least the first
three
are so obviously involved in the basic training of horses.
How-
ever, a critical review of the field requires that we
acknowledge
the evidence of horses ability to learn at all levels.
McGreevy (2004) provides a clear account of the theory of
each of the first four levels of learning ability and
illustrates
their application to the basic training of horses. It is clear
from
this reviewthat habituation, sensitisation,classical
conditioning,basic operant conditioning and chaining of operant
responses are
within the cognitive capacity of horses. Effective training
using
these abilities depends upon trainers correctly and
accurately
manipulating the training environment so that patterns of
aids,
reinforcers or punishers conform to the principles of
learning
and learning occurs.
The most important of these principles in associative learn-
ing are contingency, continuity and schedules of
reinforcement
(Domjan, 2003; McGreevy, 2004). Contingency refers to the
consistency of chains of events so that conditional stimuli
reli-
ably cue unconditional stimuli in classical conditioning,
and
reinforcers or punishers reliably follow behavioural
responses
in operant conditioning. Continuity refers to the
relationship
in time of these events, with associations forming only when
events follow within seconds of each other. Schedules of
rein-
forcement are important in operant conditioning, when
initial
learning requires a 1:1 ratio, but maintenance is most
effective
with higher and more variable ratios.
Unfortunately there is very little emphasis on the correct
application of these principles in traditional horse
training
methods (McGreevy, 2004), despite the great advances in
the application of learning theory to training other animals
0376-6357/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2006.11.008
mailto:[email protected]://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.11.008http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2006.11.008mailto:[email protected]
7/31/2019 Creighton E 2007 Equine Learning Behaviour Limits of
Ability and Ability Limits of Trainers
2/2
44 E. Creighton / Behavioural Processes 76 (2007) 4344
(Pryor, 1999). Murphy and Arkins (2007) acknowledge research
demonstrating a loss of association formation with continuity
of
greater than 10 s, commenting that this creates a challenge
for
trainers. However, untilknowledge of learning theory and
under-
standing of its application become more widespread, the
ability
of trainers to achieve the learning potential of their horses
will
remain limited and horses will continue to suffer at the hands
of
frustrated trainers (McClean and McGreevy, 2004).
Murphy and Arkins (2007) provide a more detailed review
of the research evidence for concurrent discriminations as
the
fifth level of Thomas learning hierarchy. They demonstrate
that
horses are able to discriminate between concurrent stimuli in
a
range of operant tasks, though there appears to be a strong
pri-
macyeffect in reversallearning experiments, and spatial
location
is more easily understood that other stimulus properties.
Discrimination learning is evident in training when horses
are taught to respond to more specific elements of a trained
command so that aids become more subtle. This is achieved,
as in concurrent discrimination experiments, by reinforcing
responses to the desired element and ignoring other
responses;though McClean and McGreevy (2004) advocate an
additional
slight punishment of responses to the elements to be
discrimi-
nated against. As concurrent discriminations appear to be
within
the cognitive capacity of horses, one must conclude that the
rela-
tive rarity of the use of subtle aids in riding illustrates the
ability
limits of trainers rather than the ability of horses to
learn.
Of the three highest levels of learning in Thomas hierarchy,
Murphy and Arkins (2007) address concept learning where they
report there is some research evidence to support horses
abil-
ity to form concepts and use these to problem solve in novel
situations. McClean and McGreevy (2004) note that in such
experiments horsestake some time to grasp the concept, but
hav-ing done so, their responses become more rapid and
accurate.
They describe a similar phenomenon in dressage horses that,
when they have learned to apply their understanding of basic
groundwork to high school manoeuvres, enter a steep learning
curve that takes their training up to very advanced levels.
So concept learning appears to be within the cognitive grasp
of horses, but is applied in horse training only at the most
advanced levels, again illustrating the limits on training
aris-
ing out of ability limits of trainers rather than horses,
ability to
learn.
The two highest levels of Thomas hierarchy are not
addressed by Murphy and Arkins (2007) as presumably there
is no research literature to back up their existence in horses.
But
one wonders if this is because no research has been
conducted
or because horses have failed to demonstrate learning ability
at
this level, despite the excitement and subsequent
disappointment
surrounding Clever Hans apparent mathematical genius.
Murphy and Arkins (2007) report no experimental evidence
for social learning in horses beyond an increase in motiva-
tion by the observer horse to investigate the apparatus that
yielded rewards to the instructor horse. Though
interestingly,
traditional views hold that hoses learn stable vices
(stereotypic
behaviour) from each other. Fortunately this myth has
largely
been debunked as better understanding of the development of
stereotypies suggests that outbreaks on any particular yard
are
more likely to result from a shared poor welfare (McGreevy,
2004) than any ability to acquire them by social learning.
Murphy and Arkins (2007) finish their review with reference
to the ethology of feral horses and some functional
explanations
of observed behaviour. Claims are made by some contemporary
trainers that they usealternative training methods based around
a
detailed understanding of species ethology with, in some
cases,
an explicit rejection of learning theory. Whilst such
attitudesmay have marketing appeal to owners weary of the abuse
arising
from poor trainers who lack understanding of learning
theory,
such attitudes are at best misleading and at worse
potentially
harmful.
Technically, of course, principles of learning are part of
the
animals ethology. But skill in the application of learning
theory
demands in the trainer the ability to recognise the
motivational
state of the horse. Then its responses can be predicted and
the
trainer can adapt their behaviour to capture or redirect them
as
required. So horsemanship is indeed served by detailed
knowl-
edge of functional patterns of species typical behaviour
(Rees,
1997), but not at the expense of learning to correctly
applylearning theory. A good trainer must have both.
References
Domjan, M., 2003. The Principles of Learning and Behaviour, 5th
ed.
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont.
McClean, A., McGreevy, P., 2004. Training. In: Equine Behaviour:
A Guide to
Vetinarians and Equine Scientists. W.B. Saunders, Edinburgh.
McGreevy, P., 2004. Equine Behaviour: A Guide to Veterinarians
and Equine
Scientists. W.B. Saunders, Edinburgh.
Murphy, J., Arkins, S., 2007. Equine learning behaviour. Behav.
Process.
Pryor, K., 1999. Dont Shoot the Dog! The New Art of Teaching and
Training.
Bantam Press, New York.
Rees, L., 1997. The Horses Mind. Ebury Press, London.
