Abstract: Sixteen horses were used to determine if number of trials given per training session (5, 10, 15 or 20) affected learning performance in an avoidance conditioning task. The horse had to move from one side of a test pen to the other during an auditory cue presentation to avoid aversive stimulation. A pen 8 mx3.6 m, divided into two equal sections by a 13-cm diameter plastic pipe lying on the ground, was used as the test pen. Painted plywood panels were fastened to the fence in half the pen to help horses distinguish visually between the two parts. A 10-s auditory cue was used as a signal for horses to move from one side of the test pen to the other. A 20-s intertrial interval was used. Training sessions were conducted every third day. Each trial was recorded as an avoidance (the horse completed the task during auditory cue presentation and avoided aversive stimulus) or an error (the horse received aversive stimulus). After completing ten consecutive avoidances (criterion), the horse was removed from the study. Numbers of training sessions, trials, avoidances and errors until reaching criterion were recorded for each horse. Horses varied greatly within these variables with ranges of 3-18 sessions, 37-121 trials, 20-68 avoidances and 17-53 errors to criterion. No differences were detected (P>0.05) in the number of conditioning trials per training session (treatment) for the mean number of trials, avoidances or errors to criterion. Number of training sessions to criterion differed (P<0.01) among treatments, indicating that an optimum number of learning trials per training session might exist. Mean sessions to criterion for horses receiving 5, 10, 15 and 20 trials per session were 15.1+/-1.3, 5.8+/-1.1, 5.3+/-1.1 and 4.6+/-1.1, respectively. Regression analysis indicated that 16.2 trials per training session would minimize number of sessions to criterion. Although it is widely assumed that learning efficiency in horses is decreased when intense activity is concentrated into a small number of sessions, these results indicate that moderate repetition of training activities is needed for efficient learning.

Abstract: The use of secondary reinforcement is widely accepted to support operant learning in animals. In farm animals, however, the efficacy of secondary reinforcement has up to now been studied systematically only in horses (“clicker training”), and the results are controversial. We investigated the impact of acoustical secondary reinforcement on voluntary, self-controlled visual discrimination learning of two-dimensional shapes in group-housed dwarf goats (Capra hircus). Learning tests were conducted applying a computer-controlled learning device that was integrated in the animals' home pen. Shapes were presented on a TFT-screen using a four-choice design. Drinking water was used as primary reinforcement. In the control group (Gcontrol, n = 5) animals received only primary reinforcement, whereas in the sound group (Gsound, n = 6) animals got additional acoustical secondary reinforcement. Testing recall of shapes which had been successfully learned by the goats 6 weeks earlier (T1), we found a weak impact of secondary reinforcement on daily learning success (P = 0.07), but not on the number of trials the animals needed to reach the learning criterion (trials to criterion, n.s.). Results in T1 indicated that dwarf goats did not instantly recall previously learned shapes, but, re-learned within 250-450 trials. When learning a set of new shapes (T2), there was a strong influence of secondary reinforcement on daily learning success and on trials to criterion. Animals in Gsound reached the learning criterion earlier (P < 0.05) and needed fewer trials (1320 versus 3700; P < 0.01), compared to animals in Gcontrol. Results suggest that acoustical secondary reinforcement supports visual discrimination learning of dwarf goats, especially when the task is new and the salience of S+ is low.

Abstract: Twenty-four yearling Quarter Horse fillies were divided into three groups (I) very limited handling, (II) intermediate handling and (III) extensive handling. At about 14 months of age, each horse was preconditioned for 2 weeks and then run in a simple place-learning T-maze test in which it had to locate its feed. Thirty trials were run daily for 20 days, with the location of the feed changed each day. To retire from the maze, a horse had to meet the criterion: 11 correct responses in 12 tries, with the last eight being consecutive. Horses in Group II required the fewest trials to reach criterion. These horses also learned more and had the highest percentage of correct responses (P less than .05). Mean trainability tended to predict learning ability; however, trainability and trials to criterion were not significantly correlated. Mean emotionality scores indicated a tendency for horses in the intermediately handled group to be less emotional than those in Group I or III. Results indicated that horses with an intermediate amount of handling scored higher on an intermediate test of learning. All handled horses scored higher on learning tests than those not handled.

Abstract: Traditionally, dogs have been trained by operant conditioning techniques; that is, dogs make a desired behavioural response and this response is reinforced by a reward such as food. This type of training is very effective in training dogs to perform basic obedience behaviours (e.g. `stay'). However, dogs are social animals and should be predisposed to learn from social stimuli. In the present study, we used a modified version of the model-rival technique that has been extensively used in experiments investigating the cognitive ability of parrots. In this technique, social stimuli are used to create in the animal an interest in the object without the use of food or other rewards. Therefore, the animal learns the name of the object (intrinsic reward) and not that the object's name means food. In this experiment we compared the learning ability of nine pet dogs to solve the same retrieval-selection task having been previously trained using operant conditioning or model-rival techniques. The retrieval-selection task was the dogs had to correctly select the commanded object to bring to the experimenter from a group of three similar objects. The results show no difference in the speeds with which the dogs solved the test--demonstrating the efficacy of the model-rival method. This is the first time that the effectiveness of the model-rival technique has been experimentally demonstrated with dogs. Furthermore, we believe that the methodology reported in this paper has applications in dog training and in experiments into dog cognition.