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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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?

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. :dunno:


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!

 

[marfak9]

Adduction isn't chaining. Adduction is using two previously learned behaviors to create a new behavior. In his Handbook of Dog Training and Behavior Vol. 3, Lindsay uses the example of teaching a dog to crawl. If the dog already knows "heel" and "down", you can get a crawl by cuing first "down", then "heel".

 

[lizzybeth727]

Adduction isn't chaining. Adduction is using two previously learned behaviors to create a new behavior. In his Handbook of Dog Training and Behavior Vol. 3, Lindsay uses the example of teaching a dog to crawl. If the dog already knows "heel" and "down", you can get a crawl by cuing first "down", then "heel".

Thank you!

I'll look that up. Does he talk about how to train it?

ETA: "Adduction" is not in the index.... do you know if he has another name for this theory???

 

[Doberluv]

So, simple, individual behaviors are used as components to create composite behaviors, the way letters are used to create words or sentences....whole meanings. I see the advantage in this. The linear learning, shaping by baby steps of the individual behaviors has already taken place. The dog gains an ability to quickly combine behaviors into fresh, new behaviors. This, in turn, creates an advantage in dogs that are experienced at combining behavior components. (just like dogs that are experienced clicker learners)They can combine components again and again to produce new behaviors quickly. And by learning this way, they can generalize and apply new behaviors in new contexts more readily. Combining or even separating out the separate components could make it easier to fix behaviors that have begun to regress or fall apart.

I bet a lot of us have used this method without being aware or analyzing it like we're doing now. I know I have...when I think back. As just an example. To teach Chulita to crawl, she knew bow already and down. Actually, she sort of taught herself. She bowed and I put my fingers in front of her on the floor and walked them and she went into a down and began to scoot forward after my fingers. It worked better, it seemed, than a simple down first because she already had some momentum going from the bow. It just went fluently. As she played this game where she scooted along, following my fingers, I started to add a verbal cue, "crawl." I never really used the cues for bow or down. She would just do it a lot spontaneously because the bow isn't on stimulus control (she stretches a lot) lol..... and I built from there. Now, I just say, "crawl" and she goes into a bow and quickly drops her rear end and goes straight into the crawl.

With my lab, I remember teaching her to crawl by combining come and down. She'd be in a down and I used my hand over her head to keep her from standing up and said, "come" repeatedly....staccoto-like. I would have done better to use heel and down maybe. But it was sort of the same idea.

I think we use this all the time and don't even think about it. Toker knew shake and high five and it turned into "chill." That's when both hands come way up high and then come to rest on your hand. I can think of all kinds of examples where this or something like this was used to get a whole new behavior.

Glad to see you here Kit! That was a good explanation. Previously learned behaviors was key to understanding what was meant. Now I recognize what it is we're talkig about. Thanks!

 

[release the hounds]

I"m still trying to see how any of this is new?

 

[lizzybeth727]

So, simple, individual behaviors are used as components to create composite behaviors, the way letters are used to create words or sentences....whole meanings.

That's a good analogy.

I use this in agility with Luna. "Go" means run straight ahead, and, for example, "jump" means to take the jump. So, let's say there's a series where there's a curved tunnel, then straight ahead - but probably a distance away - there's a jump. I can send her into the tunnel, and before she even sees the opening I cue her "Go jump!" and she'll know to come straight out of the tunnel and take the jump straight ahead; she can do this even if I'm running some other direction trying to set up for the obsticle after the jump (...um, at least in theory). There are probably more agility examples, too, but it does take some level of proficiency before you can really tell if the dogs are listening to your cues or following your body cues.

The other day, then, I was throwing cat toys for my cat. She got bored pretty quickly, and then I just had cat toys scattered all over my living room. I wanted the toys picked up but didn't want to actually get up - and I'm a service dog trainer for cryin' out loud - so I asked Luna if she wanted to work. She seemed willing, so she got off the couch and happened to be facing a toy... but it was about 10 feet away. So I told her "go, get it". Even though we've never worked on "go" outside of the agility field - and even though the cat toys were not the only small items on the floor - she had no problem walking straight forward and retrieving the toy.

But I still don't really have any idea how to teach it.

 

[lizzybeth727]

Toker knew shake and high five and it turned into "chill." That's when both hands come way up high and then come to rest on your hand.

This might actually be more like generativity theory: DrRobertEpstein.com

 

[lizzybeth727]

I"m still trying to see how any of this is new?

It's new to me. I'd still love to see whatever information you have on this topic.

 

[Doberluv]

Evolution isn't new. It's been around for a couple of years. And a lot of people are still interested and love to talk about it. Same with love. Love isn't anything new either. But there are all kinds of facets to it... twists and turns and people love talking about love. They still write books about love. And for some of us, various aspects of behavior or learning is still interesting, even if it's not particularly new. I guess those of us who like to think and talk about it are on some kind of lower level of intelligence. It takes a long time to bore us. Funny how that works.

 

[lizzybeth727]

I guess those of us who like to think and talk about it are on some kind of lower level of intelligence. It takes a long time to bore us. Funny how that works.

Oooh, that IS scary.... How many years have I been studying this???

 

[Doberluv]

That's a good analogy.

I use this in agility with Luna. "Go" means run straight ahead, and, for example, "jump" means to take the jump. So, let's say there's a series where there's a curved tunnel, then straight ahead - but probably a distance away - there's a jump. I can send her into the tunnel, and before she even sees the opening I cue her "Go jump!" and she'll know to come straight out of the tunnel and take the jump straight ahead; she can do this even if I'm running some other direction trying to set up for the obsticle after the jump (...um, at least in theory). There are probably more agility examples, too, but it does take some level of proficiency before you can really tell if the dogs are listening to your cues or following your body cues.

The other day, then, I was throwing cat toys for my cat. She got bored pretty quickly, and then I just had cat toys scattered all over my living room. I wanted the toys picked up but didn't want to actually get up - and I'm a service dog trainer for cryin' out loud - so I asked Luna if she wanted to work. She seemed willing, so she got off the couch and happened to be facing a toy... but it was about 10 feet away. So I told her "go, get it". Even though we've never worked on "go" outside of the agility field - and even though the cat toys were not the only small items on the floor - she had no problem walking straight forward and retrieving the toy.
But I still don't really have any idea how to teach it.

Now that first bolded part sounds to me more like a couple of behaviors that she is doing one after the other. It does not sound like a unique behavior which arose from two different behaviors, as in the description of adduction. You've cued "go" and "jump." Each behavior has it's own cue.

In the 2nd bolded part, what were the other small items on the floor? Were they typcially items she would "go get?" I'm not surprised that an experienced dog could generalize the "go" even though it wasn't in the agility ring. But how did she know which small item in particular to pick up? Was it the only toy? Or the only thing that smelled like an animal toy?