Creighton E 2007 Equine Learning Behaviour Limits of Ability and Ability Limits of Trainers

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 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.