Adduction Training

[lizzybeth727]

Alright trainers, I need some info!

I was at a seminar this weekend and heard a very brief description of "adduction theory," combining learned cues to create new behaviors. For example, you can teach your dog "roll over," and teach him "speak," and then use adduction training to teach "roll over while speaking" or "roll over, then speak." The idea is that you say your "roll over" cue, then your "speak" cue, then some other cue that means "put 'em together," then the dog does it.

The idea is really fascinating to me, and so I'm looking for any information I can find about how to actually teach this concept to the dog - or to any animal for that matter - but I'm having trouble finding anything about it online. I did find that Ken Ramirez and Virginia Broitman have given talks about this subject, but I can't find any more information than that. I have Ken's book "Animal Training" at work, so I'm hoping there is some information in there. But I'm wondering if any of you have any information you could share about this subject???

[Dogs6]

I haven't heard anything about this before but it sounds very interesting .

[Maura]

it sounds like chaining a behavior.

[release the hounds]

sounds an awful lot like what dog trainers have been doing forever, just calling it something else.

oh, and adduction has already been taking by medical professionals and PT's to mean something entirely different. They'll have to find a new word

[lizzybeth727]

Originally Posted by Maura

it sounds like chaining a behavior.

The difference is that it's a concept that the animal learns. In a chain, using the "roll over then speak" example, you would cue "roll over," and when the dog finished you'd cue "speak." But with this theory, you'd simply cue "roll over then speak," and the dog would roll over and then speak. Then you could transfer that concept to other chains - "sit then down," "down then wave," etc. If the dog understood the "then" concept, he'd easily be able to transfer to doing it with different behaviors.... whereas with a chain, you'd have to retrain each chain.

sounds an awful lot like what dog trainers have been doing forever, just calling it something else.

I'm looking for any info I can find, I'd love to know what other trainers have been calling it or what your experience is in training it.

[OutlineACDs]

When would this be useful? When would you not be able to give a command or signal between each behavior?

I'm assuming you'd like to use it in training service dogs. So like, when would the person need to tell the dog, open the door, then get the newspaper. Why not ask the dog to open the door, then once he completes the behavior ask for him to get the newspaper?

I see where it would be faster maybe, but I would be concerned about muddying the waters for the dog, plus HOW would you train a "then" or "next" command.

[Promethean]

Originally Posted by lizzybeth727

The difference is that it's a concept that the animal learns. In a chain, using the "roll over then speak" example, you would cue "roll over," and when the dog finished you'd cue "speak." But with this theory, you'd simply cue "roll over then speak," and the dog would roll over and then speak. Then you could transfer that concept to other chains - "sit then down," "down then wave," etc. If the dog understood the "then" concept, he'd easily be able to transfer to doing it with different behaviors.... whereas with a chain, you'd have to retrain each chain.

This trainer sounds like they are using quackery language to sell something that everyone else calls chaining.

The reason you can't find any info on it is because he just made it up and there is no such thing.

[Doberluv]

Originally Posted by lizzybeth727

The difference is that it's a concept that the animal learns. In a chain, using the "roll over then speak" example, you would cue "roll over," and when the dog finished you'd cue "speak." But with this theory, you'd simply cue "roll over then speak," and the dog would roll over and then speak. Then you could transfer that concept to other chains - "sit then down," "down then wave," etc. If the dog understood the "then" concept, he'd easily be able to transfer to doing it with different behaviors.... whereas with a chain, you'd have to retrain each chain.


I'm looking for any info I can find, I'd love to know what other trainers have been calling it or what your experience is in training it.

It does still sound like chaining behaviors. You're just making the cue different. He doesn't understand what those words mean exactly. He has only learned to associate them with the behavior due to reinforcement.

So if you say, "roll over" (dog rolls over) and then you say, "speak" then (dog speaks)...those are two individual behaviors, each dependent on their own cue. When you phase out the later cue, of "speak" after having practiced this two-step behavior and you give the cue, "roll over," he will also speak afterward IF that has been practiced enough together. It has become a chained behavior with two components, dependent on only one cue.

I think the more practice a dog gets with learning chains of behavior, the better he gets at it and you can skip over a lot of the shaping that you might otherwise have to go through in the early learning of a behavior.

Now, are you saying that when a dog gets very proficient at learning composite behaviors and doesn't depend on so much linear training (shaping baby steps) that he can take individual behaviors that he has learned and create spontaneously two or three of those things he's learned but not practiced together, as a chain...but by giving the cue in the beginning to do these individual things one after the other? ie: "Open door, turn on light, close door." Then dog does those things all in a row...without having practiced the sequence....as a sequence?

[release the hounds]

it is just a new word for the same old stuff. it sounds like they're writting programs in my high school computer class. "if" ......" then"......

but as a dog learns they generalize more easily or associate things more readily, so as you teach more chained behaviors, dogs make those associations quicker.

[lizzybeth727]

Originally Posted by Doberluv

Now, are you saying that when a dog gets very proficient at learning composite behaviors and doesn't depend on so much linear training (shaping baby steps) that he can take individual behaviors that he has learned and create spontaneously two or three of those things he's learned but not practiced together, as a chain...but by giving the cue in the beginning to do these individual things one after the other? ie: "Open door, turn on light, close door." Then dog does those things all in a row...without having practiced the sequence....as a sequence?

YES! That's it exactly!

Originally Posted by OutlineACDs

When would this be useful? When would you not be able to give a command or signal between each behavior?

I'm assuming you'd like to use it in training service dogs. So like, when would the person need to tell the dog, open the door, then get the newspaper. Why not ask the dog to open the door, then once he completes the behavior ask for him to get the newspaper?

What if the dog does the first behavior, and then can't hear the cue to the second behavior?

Originally Posted by OutlineACDs

HOW would you train a "then" or "next" command.

That's my question. That's why I'm trying to see if anyone knows more information about this so that I can learn how it's done.


Am I the only one who just thinks this is an interesting theory? It doesn't matter to me why it would be useful to train... why do people teach their dogs most of the "tricks" they teach? Is "roll over" useful?? 99% of the time, no. But it does give your dog something new to think about, a new problem to solve; it's fun to show off to your friends, it gives you a goal to work toward and a sense of accomplishment when you get it.

I know how to shape behaviors; I know how to chain behaviors; I know how to switch cues; I do all these things every day. I'm excited then, that there is potentially a new concept, a new way to train that I've never done before and I get to learn about!

Maybe I'm just a geek.


I did look it up in Ken Ramirez's book today. This is the closest I could get:

Abstract Learning
When two separate concepts are put together for the first time to form a new idea or behavior, this is considered abstract learning. It is the method most used in teaching people in school. This is not truly considered shaping; it is actual teaching. But the fact is that shaping can be used as the foundation for abstract learning. That topic will not be explored in this manual.

The book was published in 1999, though, so I think there are a lot of recent concepts that are not mentioned in it. Still searching!