Automated Differential Reinforcement of Not Barking in a Home-Alone Setting: Evaluating a Humane Alternative to the Bark Collar By Alexandra Protopopova, PhD, CPDT-KA Learning Outcomes o Define the problem of home-alone barking o Identify the problems with the use of aversive methods in behavior modification o Recognize several behavior analytic terms and describe the logic behind single-subject research designs o Be able to apply a novel behavioral technology to the problem of nuisance barking Excessive barking o Common reason for noise complaints Why shock isn t so great o Concerns about ethics o Behavioral effects of positive punishment Professionals advocate alternative approaches if possible o An Alternative: Differential Reinforcement Experiment 1 o Aims Develop a humane alternative to a bark collar Assess a DRO treatment for home-alone barking Remote treat delivery when dog is quiet Methods o 5 dogs with a history of nuisance barking o ABAB design Baseline o 20 min sessions o Collecting data on the frequency and inter-response time (IRT) of barks Treatment o 20 min sessions o Resetting DRO with interval length of 90% of IRT during baseline Conclusion o Experiment 1: Contingent remote delivery of food can decrease home-alone barking o Experiment 2: Increasing the interval in a DRO schedule across sessions was effective Future Research o Comparison to collars that deliver aversive stimulation Ethics of such a comparison o Motivation behind barking o Boredom versus anxiety Hiding in a different room versus true home-alone sessions o AutoTrainer and webcam o I want YOU to participate!
Automated Differential Reinforcement of Not Barking in a Home-Alone Setting: Evaluating a Humane Alternative to the Bark Collar Alexandra Protopopova, PhD, CPDT-KA
Learning Outcomes 1. Define the problem of home-alone barking 2. Identify the problems with the use of aversive methods in behavior modification 3. Recognize several behavior analytic terms and describe the logic behind single-subject research designs 4. Be able to apply a novel behavioral technology to the problem of nuisance barking
About me Sasha Protopopova PhD in Behavior Analysis Assistant Professor of Companion Animal Science at Texas Tech University Dog Trainer Research interests Animal sheltering Problem behavior HAI
Barking when home alone Excessive barking Owners seek behavioral advice Common reason for noise complaints Fines, relinquishing the dog, or even euthanasia
Reduction through Aversives Over 5 million remote shock collars sold yearly (Radio Systems Corporation, 2007) Convenient and (largely) effective Citronella spray (Juarbe-Diaz & Houpt, 1996; Wells, 2001; Maffat et al., 2003; Steiss et al., 2007; Sargisson et al., 2011). Electric shock (Juarbe-Diaz & Houpt, 1996; Steiss et al., 2007)
Why shock isn t so great Concerns about ethics Punishment in the form of shock may cause Stress (Beerda et al., 1998; Schalke et al., 2007) Lesions on the skin (Polsky, 1994) Fear and pain responses (Schlider et al., 2004)
Behavioral effects of positive punishment Functionally defined: Stimulus that decreases behavior when presented as consequence of behavior Side effects: Conditioned suppression Aggression and emotional responses Increase in cruel behavior of the punisher
Alternatives Recommended Professionals advocate alternative approaches if possible Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers Association of Professional Dog Trainers Field of Applied Behavior Analysis
An Alternative: Differential Reinforcement Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior DRO schedule
DRO schedules Problem behavior in people Disruptive behavior, seizure-like behavior, self-injury, aggression, stereotypy, thumb-sucking, vomiting, etc. Companion animals Improving in-kennel presentation (Protopopova & Wynne, 2015) Separation Anxiety (Butler et al., 2011)
Experiment 1 Aim: Develop a humane alternative to a bark collar Assess a DRO treatment for homealone barking Remote treat delivery when dog is quiet Methods 5 dogs with a history of nuisance barking ABAB design
Single-Subject Data What can we learn from single-subject designs? Experimental design NOT case-study Experimental control vs. statistical control Provides answers on an individual basis compared to group averages Generality
Reversal Designs ABAB reversal design Can provide conclusive evidence whether treatment was successful for the individual
Subjects Dog Name Age Breed Problem (s) Ruby 8 months Belgian Malinois Barks, whines, and digs in crate; dog aggression; fearful Darby 6 years Labrador mix Barks and whines when owner leaves Nina 5 years Miniature Dachshund Barks when owner leaves room/ house Bruce 2 years Pit Bull Barks, whines, and digs in crate; dog and human aggression; fearful Sully 9 months American Bulldog mix Barks and whines in crate
Procedure Baseline 20 min sessions* Collecting data on the frequency and inter-response time (IRT) of barks Treatment 20 min sessions* Resetting DRO with interval length of 90% of IRT during baseline
Example: Baseline IRT was 10 s Dog barks, on average, every 10 s Treatment 10 s * 0.9 = 9 s Dog gets a treat every 9 s if he stays quiet If he barks, the interval is reset
Results Baseline DRO (5 s) Baseline DRO (5 s) Rate of barking (barks/ min) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Session Ruby
Results Rate of Barking (bark/ min) 8 6 4 2 0 Baseline DRO (23s) Baseline DRO (23s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Darby Rate of Barking (bark/ min) 20 15 10 5 0 Baseline DRO (5s) Baseline DRO (5s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Session Nina
Results Rate of Barking (bark/ min) 9 6 3 0 Baseline DRO (12 s) Bruce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rate of barking (bark/ min) 25 20 15 10 5 0 Baseline DRO (7 s) Baseline Sully 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Session
Results averaged across dogs Rate of barking (barks per min) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Baseline t = 2.91, df = 5, p =.03 Treatment
Conclusion Experiment 1 Contingent remote delivery of food can decrease home-alone barking However, Giving treats every 5 23 s is just too much food! Is it possible to lean the schedule?
Experiment 2 Experiment 2 Subjects: Ruby, Nina, and Darby All procedures same as Experiment 1 The interval length was doubled in each phase Example: 5s, 10s, 20s, 40s, 80s, 160s, 1200s (or until responding increased to baseline levels)
Results- Ruby Rate of barking (barks/ min) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Baseline (10 min) DRO (5 s) (10s) (20s) (40s) (80s) (160s) (320s) (600s) Baseline (20 min). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Session
Results- Nina Rate of Barking (bark/ min) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Baseline DRO (5s) Baseline (20 min) (20s) (40s) (80s) (180s) (360s) DRO (10s) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Session Session (360s) Rem. (180s)
Results- Darby Rate of Barking (bark/ min) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Baseline DRO (23s) (46s) (92s) (1200s) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Session
Summary Experiment 1 Remotely delivering food using a DRO schedule was effective in reducing home-alone barking in 3 out of 5 dogs DRO was not an effective treatment for Bruce Not enough evidence that the DRO was effective for Sully (did not reverse to baseline) Experiment 2 Increasing the interval in a DRO schedule across sessions was effective Barking eliminated for 2 out of 3 dogs Smaller increases across phases could have been more effective, but less efficient
Future research Comparison to collars that deliver aversive stimulation Ethics of such a comparison Motivation behind barking Boredom versus anxiety
Future Research I want YOU to participate! Hiding in a different room versus true home-alone sessions AutoTrainer and webcam
Thank you! Association for Professional Dog Trainers Foundation PetSafe for donation of feeders Darby, Nina, Ruby, Bruce, Sully, and their wonderful owners Research Assistants: Kaila Ames, Courtney Alexander, Kissel Goldman, Devin Caballero, Austin Folger, Jessica Vondran, Steph Junco, Sarah Weinsztok a.protopopova@ttu.edu
Beerda, B., Schilder, M. B. H., van Hooff, J. A. R. A. M., de Vries, H. W., & Mol, J. A. (1998). Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 58, 365-381. Butler, R., Sargisson, R. J., & Elliffe, D. (2011). The efficacy of systematic desensitization for treating the separation-related problem behaviour of domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 129, 136-145. Friedman, S. G. (2009). What s wrong with this picture? Effectiveness is not enough. Retrieved from http://behaviorworks.org/files/articles/what%27s%20wrong%20with%20this%20 Picture.pdf. Juarbe-Diaz, S. V. (1997). Assessment and treatment of excessive barking in the domestic dog. Veterinary Clinicians of North America Small Animal Practice, 27, 515-518. Juarbe-Diaz, S. V., & Houpt, K. A. (1996). Comparison of two anti-barking collars for treatment of nuisance barking. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 32(3), 231-235. Moffat, K. S., Landsberg, G. M., & Beaudet, R. (2003). Effectiveness and comparison of citronella and scentless spray bark collars for the control of barking in a veterinary hospital setting. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 39, 343-348. Overall, K. L. (1997). Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals. Mosby, St Louis, MO, pp. 238-239. Polsky, R. H. (1994). Electronic shock collars: are they worth the risks? Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 30, 463-468. Radio Systems Coporation (2007). The Facts about Modern Electronic Training Devices [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.invisiblefence.com/invisiblefence/media/images/white-papers-pdf/static-correction-white-paper.pdf Sargisson, R. J., Butler, R., & Elliffe, D. (2011). An evaluation of the Aboistop citronella-spray collar as a treatment for barking of domestic dogs. International Scholarly Research Network Veterinary Science, 2011, 1-6. Schalke, E., Stichnoth, J., Ott, S., & Jones-Baade, R. (2007). Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 105(4), 369-380. Steiss, J. E., Schaffer, C., Ahmad, H. A., & Voith, V. L. (2007). Evaluation of plasma cortisol levels and behavior in dogs wearing bark control collars. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 106(1-3), 96-106. Uchida, Y., Yamada, K., Nakade, T., & Otomo, K. (1996). Owner complaints about canine and feline behaviour. Journal of Japanese Veterinary Medical Association, 49, 337-341. Vollmer, T. R., Hagopian, L. P., Bailey, M. F., Hanley, G. P., Lennox, D., Riordan, M., & Spreat, S. (2011). The Association for Behavior Analysis International position statement of restraint and seclusion. The Behavior Analyst, 34(1), 103-110. Vollmer, T. R, & Iwata, B. A. (1992). Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 393-417. Wells, D. L. (2001). The effectiveness of a citronella spray collar in reducing certain forms of barking in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 73(4), 299-309.