Understanding...

[Bird_Dog]

Slight correction to the previous post. A clicker is a conditioned stimulus (CS) that takes on the properties of a secondary reinforcer thru associative learning. Using CR will confuse the reader with the term conditioned response.

The need for a clicker in the field can be reduced by implementing a variable schedule of reinforcement. Of course a whistle can be used in place of a clicker, but there's no reason why an animal can't learn more than one CS

[goshawkr]

Slight correction to the previous post. A clicker is a conditioned stimulus (CS) that takes on the properties of a secondary reinforcer thru associative learning. Using CR will confuse the reader with the term conditioned response.

The need for a clicker in the field can be reduced by implementing a variable schedule of reinforcement. Of course a whistle can be used in place of a clicker, but there's no reason why an animal can't learn more than one CS

The click is a Conditioned Reinforcer, and the abbreviation CR is appropriate, although it is also appropriate to use the abbreviation CR for Conditioned Response - although that term dosnt pop up much with discussions of Operant Conditioning.

[Cuz]

The need for a clicker in the field can be reduced by implementing a variable schedule of reinforcement.


This sentence does not make sense, as far as OC goes. The clicker, or CR, needs to be used no matter what the schedule of reinforcement. Without the clicker, or CR, the reinforcement will not have the desired OC effect, as there is no expectation of reward. I do not mean to offend, and would use your name, but it is not listed. Unless your first name is Bird and last name Dog.

The reason to enact and ingrain the CR is to have the expectation of the animal that a reward is on the way. Varying the schedule makes the CR stronger. Varying the reinforcement brings the same phenomena as gambling to the human being in a casino. Most times you lose, sometimes you win and even less than the former and the latter, you win big. Gamblers anonymous has a large list of clients for a reason.

On a biological level, gambling is a form of hunting. Gambling preys upon the hunting instincts of the human to hook them into it. Copious amounts of hormones flood the system when you pull the one armed bandit. Lights, bells, whistles, etc. go off each time you pull the handle. This is the CR in Gambling. Without it, potential gamblers would walk away from the machine, without depositing another coin. Each of us falconers feel the same feeling when we are hunting. Most times, you do not get your prey, sometimes you do and less times you get the mother load. This is what gets us addicted to the sport of falconry (at least it did for this falconer). When the squirrel rounds the tree, rabbit flushes from cover or duck is spotted, the same hormones course through our bodies. Adrenaline, corticoids, dopamine and endorphins make us feel alive and well. If prey was ascertained every time, it would not be called hunting, it would be called getting.

My fourteenth kill during my first year of apprenticeship was a mink (my mother load). I have been addicted to falconry ever since.

As far as clicker training, the only time I have used one comfortably was training a chicken. The CR does not necessarily mean an auditory cue, but can be visual, olfactory or even touch. Auditory is the most used.

Hope this finds each of you and your birds well.

[Bird_Dog]

Sorry about not attaching my name to my last post. I should reveal that I have a PhD in experimental psychology and have taught the principles of learning to well over a 1000 students. Using the conventional abbreviation CR in Pavlovian conditioning and then as an abbreviation for a "conditioned reinforcer" would simply lead to mass confusion in students. I sampled the index in a few textbooks. Several listed CR under the topic of conditioned response, but no index listed CR as conditioned reinforcer. I was attempting to help people understand the topic, not to offend a falconer.

-- Scott

[Cuz]

Sorry about not attaching my name to my last post. I should reveal that I have a PhD in experimental psychology and have taught the principles of learning to well over a 1000 students. Using the conventional abbreviation CR in Pavlovian conditioning and then as an abbreviation for a "conditioned reinforcer" would simply lead to mass confusion in students. I sampled the index in a few textbooks. Several listed CR under the topic of conditioned response, but no index listed CR as conditioned reinforcer. I was attempting to help people understand the topic, not to offend a falconer.

-- Scott

None taken Scott. Please do not take offense, and I am in no way shape or form a Phd., but psychology is the study of the human brain, not of that of other animals, reptiles even insects or that of the conversation, raptors. Pavlovian conditioning is classical conditioning, not operant conditioning. Pavlovian conditioning is certainly a component of OC, but is not all of it. If you are referring to strictly to Pavlovian conditioning, the terminology could be different. When it comes to OC, I am sure. Look up Karen Pryor when referencing this info. She is the current guru and is followed closely by Steven Laymen, in our acumen.

OC does work in psychology, as does classical conditioning. The higher level of conditioning in both human and animal conditioning is most certainly OC. I have used both with humans and animals. Neither is used as a derogatory measure, and both has excellent results for both the human and the animal.

I am a dog trainer, but owned and ran fine dining restaurants for decades. I have used both OC and Classical conditioning with great success with both animals. I recommend using the same for every animal, even a spouse. It has worked for me every time, and is again, not derogatory.

First year tiercel gos is dropping feathers like crazy. He is my first intermewed raptor, and I am thoroughly enjoying it. The OC moment here is, he sees me coming, goes to a certain perch, leans like he is going to kill something, and does when I toss the meal. CR is my presence, reinforcer is the meal. Sometimes when I come into the mew, there is no meal. He still takes the same perch no matter when I appear, whether I come into the mew or not. This is classical conditioning, with varying reward. I may, or may not change this soon, but am enjoying the interaction, and lack of wildness in this chamber raised, free lofted tiercel gos.

I cannot tell you how fortunate I am to be doing what I do. I hope all of you feel the same way.

I can only hope you feel the same way I do.

Good luck to you and yours.

[goshawkr]

Sorry about not attaching my name to my last post. I should reveal that I have a PhD in experimental psychology and have taught the principles of learning to well over a 1000 students. Using the conventional abbreviation CR in Pavlovian conditioning and then as an abbreviation for a "conditioned reinforcer" would simply lead to mass confusion in students. I sampled the index in a few textbooks. Several listed CR under the topic of conditioned response, but no index listed CR as conditioned reinforcer. I was attempting to help people understand the topic, not to offend a falconer.

-- Scott

Scott,

It was apartment to me that you had a background in psychology when you suggested that I had used the wrong term for the acronym CR. I certainly was not trying to down play your education, credentials or background. I also didn't have time when I responded then to elaborate much.

I am a life long science junkie without so much as one single college hour behind me, so take that as your point of reference. I ravenously consume science information, and love reading papers directly. Although I like that a lot more now that the authors of those papers no longer seem driven to write them in needlessly obscure language.

Operant Conditioning has it roots in research psychology, but it has diverged a bit, particularly in the flavor we are talking about. I have never gone back and read the original research by Skinner, although it has always seemed interesting to me. My source of info is actually rooted in the work of Karen Pryor (retired as a professional dolphin trainer who studied Skinner in college).

It does lead to confusion when acronyms can mean more than one thing. I work in the computer industry, and we use "overloaded" acronyms all the time. I was recently working with a group where the same acronym might have two different meanings in the same sentence! And often did.

I don't really know, since I have not read the base research, if this overloading of the CR acronym was in Skinner's work or not.