|
| Author |
Messages |
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
 |
| 08/22/2008 12:57 PM |
|
| Jere Murray wrote:
>
> Is there a fundamental limit to the level of fixation inherent in the processes
> whereby learned behaviors are conditioned or fixed? The conventional "wisdom"
> states that conditioned behaviors fade or extinguish over time if they are not
> reinforced (via additional conditioning exercises). Do some innate behaviors do so
> also (outside the fact that some are programmed to end at certain stages of life)?
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some innate behaviors can be conditioned to the point that they
disappear, pointing is an innate fixed action pattern that can easily be
conditioned to disappear. If the conditioning, such as the halt or whoa
command, is terminated this fixed action pattern will recover but in
some dogs it might take three years of silence by the handler to see the
re-emergence of pointing. In other dogs with a keen desire to find game
the pointing can recover within a few months if the whoa command is
discontinued. Some innate behaviors are almost impossible to override
or duplicate. The classic example of this is the raised leg urination
fixed action pattern. It can be terminated by commands but it is almost
impossible to duplicate it. I have tried to train a dog to raise its
leg to simulate urination as a joke and found it impossible, couldn't
get a dog to do it although I have heard that some movie trainers have
succeeded. Simulating pointing with the whoa command is quite common
although it usually terminates the natural pointing behavior so some
FAPs are capable of being modified and some seem permanent. I suspect
most innate behavior and fixed action patterns do not fade over time
although they can be temporarily extinguished by training.
Fixed action patterns are often beyond the animal's conscious control.
Some young dogs are surprised when their raised leg urination starts
happening to them and try to fight the instinctive posture and urination
sequence. FAPs happen without conscious participation by the animals in
most situations, the external or internal releaser triggers the behavior
and the animal doesn't hesitate or think about it. Some training can
get to that stage, for example your ability to tie your shoelaces
without thinking about it. Another example of a learned behavior that
is difficult to extinguish is your ability to ride a bicycle, once you
have it it's difficult to forget how to do it, humans seem to readily
adopt learned balancing behaviors so bicycle riding may be an innate
behavior .
Cj |
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/22/2008 2:26 PM |
|
| Cj said:
>
> Some innate behaviors can be conditioned to the point that they
> disappear, pointing is an innate fixed action pattern that can easily be
> conditioned to disappear.
Are you sure pointing is a FAP? My understanding is that a FAP is, in fact a
"pattern" - a sequence of "behaviors" (which may be a many as one,
or many more) which is triggered by some stimulus (usually exogenous) and must
progress through the sequence until it is completed.
Clearly "point" may be triggered by a number of exogenous stimuli, and terminates,
not only on the occurence of other stimuli or events which are quite varied and may
not all be exogenous. In particular many would argue that dogs usually have to
learn to hold point - to be "staunch" - and at first tend to terminate point,
apparently on their own prerogative, to initiate an attempt to capture. Failing
success at capture, they typically chase in a continued effort to capture. Success
here is BAD NEWS - as instaant learning takes place which tends to erode the
"point" response. OTOH, failure in this attempt, over time and repititions results
in cessation of the chase and then cesation of the attempt to capture - all in a
quite natural manner. Their may well be an epigenetic character to a staunch point.
I agree that "point" is an innate behavior but not a FAP. And holding point, I
believe is a learned behavior - in most dogs.
> Another example of a learned behavior that
> is difficult to extinguish is your ability to ride a bicycle, once you
> have it it's difficult to forget how to do it, humans seem to readily
> adopt learned balancing behaviors so bicycle riding may be an innate
> behavior .
> Cj
I suspect this derives directly from the natural ability to maintain balance
exhibited by the walking human. But, this is not entirely innate - ie genetically
fully programmed. It is probably an example of an epigeneticly developed behavior.
Jere
|
|
|
|
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
|
| 08/23/2008 5:28 PM |
|
|
> Clearly "point" may be triggered by a number of exogenous stimuli, and terminates,
> not only on the occurence of other stimuli or events which are quite varied and may
> not all be exogenous. In particular many would argue that dogs usually have to
> learn to hold point - to be "staunch" - and at first tend to terminate point,
> apparently on their own prerogative, to initiate an attempt to capture. Failing
> success at capture, they typically chase in a continued effort to capture. Success
> here is BAD NEWS - as instaant learning takes place which tends to erode the
> "point" response. OTOH, failure in this attempt, over time and repititions results
> in cessation of the chase and then cesation of the attempt to capture - all in a
> quite natural manner. Their may well be an epigenetic character to a staunch point.
>
> I agree that "point" is an innate behavior but not a FAP. And holding point, I
> believe is a learned behavior - in most dogs.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pointing is indeed a fixed action pattern and it encompasses a number of
physiological and behavioral changes including focused attention,
muscular tension and physical rigidity, perhaps an increase in heart
rate and certainly more concentration on sniffing and listening. With
experimental litters (shorthairs, Brits, Drahthaars and wirehairs) we
have experienced better than 95% focused pointing without steadiness
problems. With roughly comparable litters raised in the 'usual'
versatile dog style training all (100%) of the dogs had to have
steadiness training. The problem is that the most powerful disruptive
force acting to terminate pointing is the human voice and in most
situations it's impossible to get handlers to shut up and let the dog
point. When you study hundreds of young dogs in natural ability testing
you see a lot of natural pointing that terminates the instant the
handler says something. To guarantee a break and chase the handler only
has to speak a single syllable. Some few handlers can be convinced to
shut up but many of those start to run to their dog, which also ends the
pointing. A slow circular walk to the pup doesn't terminate the point
until after the dog has seen the handler walk past it.
Staunch pointing in North America is _always_ a trained behavior, there
usually is no need to train staunchness if the young dogs are properly
introduced to scent pointing since they point until the handler walks
past them. After the handler has walked past the pup he is in control
and with proper body language and some control training (yard training)
the pup will stay behind or to the side of the handler. The usual
American 'training' patterns taught at clinics will _always_ require
steadiness training since when whoaed the dogs are not pointing, they
have stopped pointing and they're responding to a command and are
invariably tempted to break, creep or flush the bird. With natural
innate pointing there's no need to teach steadiness because the point is
invariably held until the handler terminates it! American techniques
are appropriate for training beagles or pigs to point but they're never
appropriate for any dog with a pointing instinct. The reason why
'steadiness' is a problem for so many versatile dog trainers is that you
cannot teach a bird dog anything in the presence of a bird, the only
real and fast solution is to shut up, watch your own body language and
let the dog what it wants to do... hold a point. If you want to create
a pointing dog from any breed (Labrador) just use the method described
in books where you whoa the dog and then start training steadiness.
Steadiness training is only necessary when the handler, trainer or
bystanders can't keep their mouths shut... guaranteed. Holding the whoa
is a trained behavior, training steadiness is a learned behavior,
steadiness isn't a problem with a properly trained young dog. A proper
introduction to scent pointing up requires a half hour or so on each of
five or six weekends. Training whoa and then steadiness can take months
of hard work, the right way is quick, very simple, and it lasts for the
life of the dog. I haven't trained steadiness for 20 years with my
dogs, I try to do it right the first time and let the dog's natural
inherent behavior handle the rest. Why selectively breed pointing dogs
that you have to train to point? Think about it.
Cj |
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/24/2008 1:14 AM |
|
| So, may be so.
We need for you to give your precise definition of "fixed action pattern" and
another of "innate motor pattern."
What are the characteristics of each which distinguish the two from one another, if
any, in your mind?
I can't discuss this stuff without definitions. If we start from generalities, we
can then proceed to specifics. I thought we had a start on that earlier, but
apparently not.
Jere
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Pointing is indeed a fixed action pattern and it encompasses a number of
> physiological and behavioral changes including focused attention,
> muscular tension and physical rigidity, perhaps an increase in heart
> rate and certainly more concentration on sniffing and listening. ...
|
|
|
|
|
cwalt
MH
Posts:180
|
| 08/25/2008 10:31 AM |
|
Jere Murray wrote:
> We need for you to give your precise definition of "fixed action pattern" and
> another of "innate motor pattern."
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Fixed action patterns are sequences of behavior (a series of connected
movements) that are phylogenetic in origin. All members of a species,
often all males or all females, will engage in the fixed action pattern
when the appropriate releasing stimuli are present. This is essentially
Niko Tinbergen's definition. Once a fixed action pattern is initiated
it carries through to the end even if the stimuli initiating it are
removed. Some ethologists and behaviorists consider innate motor
patterns to be the same as fixed action patterns. Some behaviorists
(psychologists) consider an innate motor pattern to be a reaction chain,
a FAP related innate behavior. Reaction chains are superficially
similar to fixed action patterns except that each response in the chain
requires a specific stimulus to set it off. The reaction chain, by
contrast, requires that an organism's performance produces stimuli that
set off the next response in the chain. With a reaction chain if you
present a stimulus that normally occurs in the middle of a chain will
restart the chain at that point rather than at the beginning; if the
stimuli that evoke the behavior are removed the chained sequence is
disrupted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> What are the characteristics of each which distinguish the two from one another, if
> any, in your mind?
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fixed action pattern is typical of the fox burying something, a hole
is scratched by alternate movements of the paws, the object is pushed
into the hole by the fox's nose and tamped with the nose, dirt is pushed
into the hole with the nose and then the surface is scratched flat by
the paws. Even if the object to be buried is removed the tamping and
burial will continue. The reaction chain is like the nursing pattern of
an infant, touch the cheek and the rooting (searching) behavior will
follow if there's a warm surface, if a nipple is found the rooting turns
to seizing the nipple in the mouth and that, in turn, stimulates
sucking. At any point if a stimulus is removed the chain will stop.
Remember these are both innate behaviors but they follow slightly
different rules.
Now in pointing when a bird is scented the dog will go all the way
through the emotional and muscular sequences that lead up to a finished
point, the dog points and then discovers the scent is no longer present
so the dog moves ahead or across the wind until it catches bird scent
and then the point is re-established. Thus a moving bird will trigger a
natural series of alternating points and movements until the scent is
fixed at which point the point becomes fixed. All of this follows
inevitably until the handler speaks at which point the pointing and
moving ahead cease. If the dog is working scent this way the handler's
whoa command terminates the behavioral sequences, then when the dog is
asked to relocate after being whoaed the dog restarts the whole search
sequence, it doesn't restart where it was stopped, and so a relocate is
a bolt ahead in a whole new search, the biggest problem with a dog
flushing the bird when told to relocate. The point, move, point, move
response to a moving bird is a FAP sequence and not a reaction chain
that can be stopped and restarted in the middle. When my book is
published you can read the section on restarting the search after a whoa
where it details the differences between a reaction chain and a fixed
action pattern.
{
Cj
|
|
|
|
|
jmurr
MH
Posts:158
|
| 08/25/2008 2:10 PM |
|
| > Cj wrote:
> Fixed action patterns are sequences of behavior (a series of connected
> movements) that are phylogenetic in origin. All members of a species,
> often all males or all females, will engage in the fixed action pattern
> when the appropriate releasing stimuli are present. ...
> The point, move, point, move
> response to a moving bird is a FAP sequence and not a reaction chain
> that can be stopped and restarted in the middle.
Now we're getting somewhere (maybe).
It isn't the point, per se, that is the FAP, but the sequence of behaviors the dog
executes AFTER it has located the bird! (To this juncture in the hunt - when the
dog initiates this 'point, move, ...' FAP (referred to as 'point-relocate' from now
on) - the dog has executed a 'search' (pattern){in the jargon of your referenced
moth article - a casting sequence. Experienced bird dog folks would include
casting and the "seeking of objectives" in the search behaviors - if they were
willing to think this deeply.} which was terminated by the "hint" of the possible
presence of a bird. That "hint" terminated the search and initiated what I call a
'locate' pattern which would correspond to the 'zig-zag' motor pattern of those
moths. The actual fixing of bird location (by scent, sight or hearing) initiates
the 'point - relocate' action pattern.
Now, let's forget referneces to "whoa." I don't train or use it nor do any of the
trainers I respect and have worked with. You taught me the folly of it (in
connection with birds) as did the Bills West and Gibbons and Maurice (where are you
Maurice - we'll need you soon)
You maintain the pup needs "proper" introduction to scent pointing. It does not
come with the pup from the the womb - perhaps only awaiting a preprogrammed time
(age)to develop this FAP. This would seem to imply that the behavior is not fixed
out of the womb. Rather some experience appears necessary to initiate its
expression? (that would imply an epigenetic origin - but that's another subject).
In this same connection, one HAS to wonder whether or why it is that lacking this
intervention by a human (the 'proper scent pointing initiation'you insist upon)
young dogs go through a considerably different learning process before they execute
this 'point - relocate' behavior you describe. At least my own experience
(admittedly meagre) has shown that to be true. As a younger person I had a setter
pup and a pointer pup. I knew nothing of "whoa" and with both my experience was
that of a youngster out in the field with his dog. In each case the dogs' first
(and many subsequent) encounter with wild birds (we didn't have planted birds at
that time) was to briefly point then attempt to capture the bird followed by flight
of bird triggering chase. This was also my experience with the PLs except one
never really did settle - but she was a bit old when she really began to experience
wild birds. The birddog literature is replete with descriptions of such behavior by
young dogs as they learn they can not catch the bird and eventually settle down and
begin to wean themselves of the bump/chase action pattern and settle into the point
pattern. Some take more trials than others and a very few never do settle in.
I believe a good case can be made for assigning a "strength" to these action
patterns (in this instance: 'point-relocate'and 'bump-chase'). These strengths are
determined by genetic factors and, therefore, by breeding. It is the balance
between the strengths of these two which determines how much time a pup might
"waste" on bump-chase before settling in to point-relocate. It is this balance
that distinguishes the sight or scent hound from the pointing dog.
That's enough for now - they're serving lunch.
> When my book is
> published you can read the section on restarting the search after a whoa
> where it details the differences between a reaction chain and a fixed
> action pattern.
> {
> Cj
Hummph. At one time you asked that I read it before it was published!!
Jere
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|