Why is the tone-first important when using an e-collar to stop a behavior?

A special thanks to Tyler Muto for inspiring this post. It’s a work in progress, but I realized that I needed to get started explaining this important topic even if it wasn’t perfect yet – Gary Wilkes.

Dog learns how to react to aversive events in general, whether you structure the process or not. However, a trainer’s job is to create structure that facilitates learning. To teach inhibitions, electric shock collars are the only tool that can apply aversive control away from the trainer and/or in what the dog thinks is the absence of the trainer. The dog’s question is always going to be “why did I get zapped?”(For those of you who find these tools objectionable in all cases, try stopping a dog from ingesting inedible objects. If you fail, the dog dies of a gastric or intestinal obstruction. E-Collars and IP video cameras make solving this often deadly problem simple and effective. No collar, dead dog. It’s your choice. Claims that modern, scientific gyrations using positive reinforcement can stop behavior are totally false.  Period.) This is the symmetrical opposite of positive reinforcement. The dog asks, “What did I do that caused that treat?” Using “marker” signals that precede the tangible reinforcement or punishment greatly increases the efficiency of any training procedure and reduces both the time and number of repetitions necessary to affect the desired change. As a clicker delivers great precision when marking acceptable behavior, the tone on the shock collar provides the same accuracy with punishment.

Why use the tone?
The tone is an indicator meaning “don’t do that” which can be used in a variety of settings. It becomes a learned constant, like a stop sign or the circle with slash to mean “no…” in the example at left, it means “No cow tipping.” The important part is the “what” you just did. The onset of the tone means you made a mistake and because you already know the signal, you know how to respond, instantly. That makes it easier to identify what caused the alarm. This is mirrored in human culture where alarms are connected to dangerous situations. If you look up alarm sound effects on Google, you get deluged with a million different ones – for a reason. We use sights and sounds to connect situations to instant inhibitions. EG: You walk into a room and there are several people lying unconscious on the floor and you hear this sound. http://www.sounddogs.com/sound-effects/25/mp3/325319_SOUNDDOGS__al.mp3 Now tell me what any human would do when they hear this noise – if they have previously paired alarm sounds with danger. What if you walked into a room without the bodies and you heard this sound? What if you were walking along a hallway in a commercial building and heard it? What if you had never heard an alarm sound before? Which person is more prepared to adapt to the sound and then learn from it? The person who had previously learned about alarm sounds.

The tone that precedes the shock becomes an identifier that marks a specific consequence. The animal is sensitive to the timing of the signal focuses instantly – 050414_0608_Whyistheton1.jpgmeaning there are less things to sift through to figure out cause and effect. Consider this photo. Does the white circle help you find Waldo? Yes. It does that by limiting the amount of information you have to process to find the target. The tone on an e-collar works the same way, audibly. We respond to many learned associations for danger in the same way, regardless of what sensation is triggered. For instance, if you saw this on a bottle, what would you think? The background looks like a happy-face button – but the skull and cross bones says otherwise. Which will you assume and what will you do the instant you see it?

The point is that we use these symbols, sounds and feelings to trigger defensive behaviors AND teach us what to avoid in the future. The real issue of stopping a behavior is to stop it immediately, clearly identify which behavior caused the consequence AND prevent it from happening in the future. Most pet owners do not have the skill or timing of a professional. They also aren’t going to be as diligent. That means that the specific method must be simple, rely on a behavior they already have and end the behavior in one or two repetitions. The best combination is to have a trainer do the precise work, AKA “heavy lifting” and leave the dog with an inhibition that may last a lifetime. If the behavior does come back, it comes back slowly. The owner can then re-apply the process or call the trainer.

Note: “Anti-punishment” ideologues like B.F. Skinner, Murray Sidman, Pat Miller, Karen Pryor, et al, make a big issue that punishment is a bad process because it might have to be reapplied. Hmmmm. Isn’t that the same with positive reinforcement only more so? Doesn’t positive reinforcement have to be regularly reapplied to maintain the behavior? Unless you assume that the punishment is somehow worse than the lethal nature of an unacceptable behavior like pica, this is stupid. No, not just stupid, it is also cruel. They would let a dog die because it has to undergo discomfort many times less painful than dying from an intestinal blockage or the highly invasive and risky surgery that may or may not save the animal’s life. They are more worried about “side effects” than the lethal primary effects of a dog ingesting inedible objects or biting into an electrical cord. So, which is it, a couple of big ouches or a knife ripping the dog’s belly? A brief intense pain or a mandible ruined by 110 volts of high-amp electricity? (It seems to me that both of those events are electrical, but one is harmless and doesn’t leave a mark while the other destroys flesh and bone or may kill the dog outright.) What if the ouch prevents the need to cut the dog open? Anti-punishment zealots never think of that – it’s called prophylaxis.

  1. pro·phy·lax·is
    noun
    noun: prophylaxis
    1. action taken to prevent disease, especially by specified means or against a specified disease.

Many veterinarians and “humane” advocates recommend sexual mutilation to prevent the possibility of various cancers. Spaying and neutering causes pain, risk of infection and can be lethal. Not all dogs get cancer, so some of them have this procedure done who would never have needed it. i.e. Unnecessary pain, risk of death and infection.

Stop in the Name of Love:
So if you wish to stop a behavior you need a sight, sound, smell or some other consistent signal that indicates, “don’t ever do that again.” The signal helps define what you should never do again. If you are going to use an e-collar for this, get one that has a tone that automatically comes on when you press a single button and then automatically applies the shock. Two companies provide this feature – PetSafe and E-Collar Technologies. (Again, for those of you who hate e-collars, tell me how you are going to stop a dog from eating rocks 50 yards from the house, or in your absence.)

Advantages for the trainer and their client:
The biggest advantage for clients is that they can press a single button and hold it for a set time – like four seconds — and never take their eyes off the dog. (Petsafe collars can be set so that the tone-followed-by-shock button has a bump on it or is smooth, depending on model. E-Collar Technologies collars use location to tell you which finger to move.) The goal is to press the button (which starts the tone) at the instant, just before the behavior starts. Then leave it down long enough to have at least three or four seconds of tangible aversive shock. (One more time, if you hate shock collars, imagine a dog being cut open by a veterinarian to remove an intestinal blockage and you trying to stop the surgery because it might hurt the dog. Before you make your decision, watch this video all the way through. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl1YWFBwQw8

The use of a specific time – three or four seconds, helps to determine the level of shock necessary to stop the behavior. You can adjust the level of shock or the amount of time. This is not an automatic assumption, but something that differs from dog to dog. Meaning that a lower level of shock for more seconds may be preferable to a higher intensity of shock for the same amount of time.

The real issue is that stopping a behavior rapidly can be the difference between life and death. Millions of dog undergo far more invasive, painful and scarey procedures in the course of regular veterinary care. To propose that a high voltage, miniscule amperage shock is inherently dangerous means that shuffling across a rug and touching a metal door-knob is traumatic. It also means that we should have two sets of ethics – one for cutting off a perfectly good set of testicles and one for stopping a dog from inadvertently killing itself. I think that’s nuts.

7 thoughts on “Why is the tone-first important when using an e-collar to stop a behavior?

  1. I had asked a noted colleague of yours about how he uses a ‘page’ button on an e-collar. He replied that he seldom uses it. But this article suggests to me that the ‘page’ (vibrate only at a fixed strength) can substitute for a ‘tone’ …. even if the dog cannot hear. Continuing the behavior will get a substantial ‘stim’ if the dog persists.
    Does my reasoning seem right and have you used an e-collar this way? in the unwanted behavior

    • Doug, Yes, you are correct. Having signals that represent predictable consequences improves the animal’s ability to associate cause and effect. What you are suggesting is a “warning” – and it works quite well if you make it absolute. “One more of those and you will get the signal associated with an intolerable consequence.” Few people use the tones or vibes on a collar with any devotion to that concept, but I do.

  2. Doug, vibration is often not perceived by the dog which makes it unreliable. You can certainly use it, but unless the dog is deaf, there is no advantage. As for your final comment, that is not the best way to stop a behavior. If you provide the tone, the dog gets nailed. The predictability of an inevitable consequence in training goes a long way to creating more complete inhibitions. If you bluff, the dog will start to vary its behavior and start cheating. It’s the nature of the beast.

  3. Um, I think there’s a defintion issue going on. A child under 4 can’t really understand consequences in any reasonable detail. Domestic dogs are generally at the mental level of a 2/3 year old toddler.

    Also: what you described is at best, discipline. At worst, it’s punishment. But who said anything was wrong with punishment?

    Let me give you an example for children for English Law.

    Type 1: A child does something wrong and is scolded. That’s discipline. Valid parenting method, legally and socially.

    Type 2: Child does something wrong and is spanked. The mark lasts for at most, 24 hours. According to English law, that is punishment. Specifically corporal punishment. Legally valid parenting method. Socially dodgy. You’ll get funny looks but…

    Corpoal punishment essentially equals using your greater strength to force your will on your child so long as it is for the child or bystanders own good.

    wrong motivaton, wrong force is abuse.

    • Sia, you have mixed children into the discussion and made it your primary rebuttal. As for English law, that isn’t a term that can be used in this context. The behavioral definition of punishment is the presentation or removal of a stimulus that causes a behavior to decline or stop. What is or is not ethical is irrelevant if you are speaking of a natural effect. EG: A discussion of gravity has nothing to do with dropping an anvil on someone’s head. As for your final comment I would suggest you consider that punishment intended to stop a behavior such as pica is a necessary and life-saving tool. If a doctor cuts off your gangrenous foot you may live. Is the doctor trying to use his greater strength and force to make you comply to some form of ordered behavior?
      As for who said anything is wrong with punishment, I cited several names of people who are openly opposed to its use. That belief is wide-spread in modern first world nations.
      Finally, both dogs and children change their behavior when confronted with an aversive event. “Understanding” has nothing much to do with it. I don’t touch hot stoves. I learned it a long time before I understood why a stove would be hot or that it would burn me.

  4. I want to venture out into a question that has puzzled me. A dog with dog-to-dog aggression will bark, growl, or otherwise show some signs it is about to attack another dog. If the dog is wearing and e-collar, how would a trainer proceed in these 2 cases:
    1) The dog has shown it really knows ‘leave’ or ‘off’ and will ignore food or other animals at a distance. Should the dog get a tone/vibration along with the ‘off’ command and then a substantial shock if he fails to comply?
    2) The dog does NOT know ‘leave’ or ‘off’ commands. What should the handler do if tone/vibration and substantial shock are available with an e-collar ?

  5. Will a bonker work as well as e collar I’ve used the bonker for years to create inhibition on harmful objects socks etc works amazin but if e collar is better then absolutely

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *