Neutral reinforcement thread

[better half]

but 'peace and understanding' is a calm and relaxing and thus rewarding state. Thus the very nature of maintaining the balance between a positive and negative stimuli, with the hope of the horse learning that the end result is 'peace and understanding' and thus a calm and relaxed environment, negates the title 'Neutral Reinforcement' because the ultimate 'state that a horse is striving to achieve, is to them a positive one and as such this approach whilst a good, grounded and refreshingly insightful in its mentality is one of 'positive reinforcement'.

I do speak as someone with much experience in the field of behavioural science and of research in such fields.

I am not knocking the idea, but the description and interpretation of it is off kilter, no mammal will respond to a purely to neutral stimulus, neutral does not teach and the end result must be of a positive or a negative nature in the recipients eye to be of any 'nurture' value and to 'reinforce' the message, thus can only be truly described as positive or negative reinforcement. Additionally your OH's title refers to the 'reinforcement' not the 'stimuli' thus if the horse deems 'peace and understanding' as a 'reward' as you state, your OH's approach is one of 'positive reinforcement'

Sorry, I have repeated myself, but perhaps OH would be better to entitle it as: Positive Reinforcement as a Result of Neutral Stimuli' although I would still argue that what your OH describes as 'Neutral Stimuli' will have a positive or negative slant to the horse in order that the horse learns from them.

I thank you for your post I think the peace and understanding was my thoughts the OH wrote once,NR is that it would be a mixture of negative and positive experiences. The horse learns to do the right thing through negative experiences, but when he gets it right, it's comfortable for him and he is rewarded'.

I thought most terms relate more to dog's, horses don't need food reward because it is all around then naturally. This was on the last thread.

 

[ofcourseyoucan]

its only good horsemanship at the end of the day. stick whatever marketable label you want on it! i have never had a bad/difficult horse come through me that didnt need understanding, or a little time, or a bit of work that didnt come right. they all come good here. its when you send them home the problems might start. nervous/novice /cautious owners your horse needs/wants an alpha.

 

[Baggybreeches]

pssst brighteyes PM!

 

[Tinypony]

I've read through this carefully and have to be honest, I don't think that trying to introduce this new term into the training world is particularly helpful. We can already see that people will put their own interpretation, definition and spin on it. Even coming from BH, the definition is wooly at best. Whereas the terms positive and negative reinforcement are clear and scientificially understood. (People don't always understand them, but they can go and search out the answer).

What is wrong with just calling a spade a spade? A trainer stands quiet and lets the horse absorb what had just happened, taking the pressure off them for a period of time. Great, not complicated. (Mind you, what some don't realise is that the only way to really return some horses to "neutral" is to put them in their field and vanish out of sight. Standing still at the end of a rope is very often not a truly neutral situation from some horse's point of view...).

If the trainer is doing anything at all, then it isn't neutral. So:

"He explained that there is a small space between these theories in which you must work, where it is completely neutral territory. It look’s like I am doing nothing because all I am doing is keeping a horse’s behaviour between the positive and negative ie the neutral zone. Just like someone balancing a basket of fruit on their head. When they are good at it it seems to be part of them, but while you are learning, then you’ll see them make huge, erratic adjustments from positive to negative to keep things in balance.
The horse by nature understands that life provides both negative and positive stimuli and is looking for a balance between the two. When it is right the reward is peace and understanding. "

I think this is just unecessarily confusing. I think what he is saying is that he attempts to keep the horse in a listening and learning state without letting it switch off or over-react. I believe that is what any good, thinking trainer will try to do. However, if it looks as if you are doing nothing, but the horse is responding, then you aren't doing nothing. Even if you are projecting intent, relaxing or lifting your body (using "feel") - you are doing something and the horse is well aware of that.

If you're neutral then you aren't having any influence on the horse at all in my opinion. And there is a time and a place to be in that state.

You can also get into all sorts of discussion using the accepted scientific definitions of +R and -R about the fact that if you give "peace and understanding" after working with a horse, that isn't a reward, it's a release.

Anyway, enough from me, I am supposed to be working flat out producing minutes, and interesting and distracting threads are no help at all. And I think I'm rambling a bit, but I know what I mean. )

 

[YasandCrystal]

Actually, it's more like when horses absorb and accept what they have learned.

Amandap...I agree with your slant on it. If horses are asked to do something, such as trot on, then any aids or cues given whilst they are doing just that will be counter-productive, resulting in desensitisation to the aid/cue. Over-use of aids invites resistance sooner or later.

Yes I so agree with this and I argue with instructors that insist on a strong leg at all times to make the horse work! Riding should be natural and calm and the horse willing and sensitive. To me if a horse is listening and has responded to a cue/aid they should carry on until another cue/aid asks otherwise. Otherwise it is like a nagging wife - you need to ask then stop and allow the response to happen.

 

[better half]

If you're neutral then you aren't having any influence on the horse at all in my opinion. And there is a time and a place to be in that state.

For some horse having someone near them in a neutral state would be enough. I think they want to live in a neutral state they are not looking for reward just survival and saftey in numbers even with people. Sorry to be wooly again just a quick thought.

 

[Tinypony]

Yes, I think that's why I'd urge caution about inventing phrases such as neutral reinforcement. )

People are so quick to jump on words, and what they are told they mean, or what they think they mean... they can overlook the horse in front of them.

(I must admit, I am influenced by my feelings about things like Horsenalities).

 

[Changes]

Having watched a video of this guy trying to get near the rhs of a horse that really doesn't want him to do that, I understand what he means by his terminology. He's not looking for a response, he's looking for a lack of response.

I really like the methodology, whatever it's called. If it had to have a 'name' as the new wave of training seems to need, flooding would seem to be the closest. But really, I'd say it was simply good instincitive horsemanship, and doesn't need labels.
If you need labels to understand horses then you'll be forever running uphill on a down escalator.

 

[Spudlet]

Well, I can see what is meant (assuming the interpretations on here are correct) but IMO 'reinforcement' in terms of training and conditioning has a very clear meaning already, and it does not go with neutral. Of course, training does not involve constant, continuous reinforcement, the animal needs time to absorb and possibly also to offer behaviours. I agree that caution needs to be used with this kind of terminology... there is already a huge amount of misunderstanding about what conditioning really is and how works (as evidenced on this forum, at times) and I don't think that adding extra reinforcement terms is going to help with that, to be honest! The concept itself is a useful one, but the semantics need some work - because semantics do matter in this instance.

Cos I likes to chuck a spanner in the works every so often.... Of course, what we are thinking of as 'neutral reinforcement' could also be termed negative reinforcement... the horse moves off a leg aid (for example) and is reinforced by having the leg aid removed... and as long as the horse continues to offer the behaviour, the reinforcement persists because the leg aid is not reapplied. You coudl term that 'neutral reinforcement' because you are not doing anything in terms of the leg aid, but actually IMO it is negative reinforcement.

 

[better half]

The process is fast and contious so NR is not about a static state it is also not flooding as the horse has full attention on the process and MrBH is reasurance a reward.?

 

[Changes]

The process is fast and contious so NR is not about a static state it is also not flooding as the horse has full attention on the process and MrBH is reasurance a reward.?

I don't follow your comment about flooding?

 

[amandap]

What is wrong with just calling a spade a spade? A trainer stands quiet and lets the horse absorb what had just happened, taking the pressure off them for a period of time. Great, not complicated. (Mind you, what some don't realise is that the only way to really return some horses to "neutral" is to put them in their field and vanish out of sight. Standing still at the end of a rope is very often not a truly neutral situation from some horse's point of view...).

If the trainer is doing anything at all, then it isn't neutral. So:

"He explained that there is a small space between these theories in which you must work, where it is completely neutral territory. It look’s like I am doing nothing because all I am doing is keeping a horse’s behaviour between the positive and negative ie the neutral zone. Just like someone balancing a basket of fruit on their head. When they are good at it it seems to be part of them, but while you are learning, then you’ll see them make huge, erratic adjustments from positive to negative to keep things in balance.
The horse by nature understands that life provides both negative and positive stimuli and is looking for a balance between the two. When it is right the reward is peace and understanding. "

I think this is just unecessarily confusing. I think what he is saying is that he attempts to keep the horse in a listening and learning state without letting it switch off or over-react. I believe that is what any good, thinking trainer will try to do. However, if it looks as if you are doing nothing, but the horse is responding, then you aren't doing nothing. Even if you are projecting intent, relaxing or lifting your body (using "feel") - you are doing something and the horse is well aware of that.

If you're neutral then you aren't having any influence on the horse at all in my opinion. And there is a time and a place to be in that state.

You can also get into all sorts of discussion using the accepted scientific definitions of +R and -R about the fact that if you give "peace and understanding" after working with a horse, that isn't a reward, it's a release.

Anyway, enough from me, I am supposed to be working flat out producing minutes, and interesting and distracting threads are no help at all. And I think I'm rambling a bit, but I know what I mean. )

I agree with this. Passive is the word I've heard that is used for the trainer just waiting and tbh I think it fits very well.
I've been thinking and I do struggle to see anything truly neutral to a living creature myself, they are always aware of something or other...

I do see neutral could have a use with reference to a handlers action/response but am still finding it hard to see any sense in a neutral reinforcer.

 

[Tinypony]

Having watched a video of this guy trying to get near the rhs of a horse that really doesn't want him to do that, I understand what he means by his terminology. He's not looking for a response, he's looking for a lack of response.

I really like the methodology, whatever it's called. If it had to have a 'name' as the new wave of training seems to need, flooding would seem to be the closest. But really, I'd say it was simply good instincitive horsemanship, and doesn't need labels.
If you need labels to understand horses then you'll be forever running uphill on a down escalator.

I think in that case it was simply approach and retreat.
Sometimes it's useful to be able to have a "label" (although I'm not sure that's quite the right word) because it makes it easy for people to understand what you mean. Just as we might understand what a half-halt means, we may clearly understand what approach and retreat is, because it's common terminology. We can't all go about being wafty and saying we just used good instinctive horsemanship to sort out the problem with the horse that didn't like bridles, because it wouldn't help anyone to really know what we did.
I'm not sure that the phrase neutral reinforcement is going to further understanding in the world of horsemanship though. Sorry BH, I'm saying that with a bit of a grin.

 

[Changes]

I think in that case it was simply approach and retreat.

Yes, it had an element of that, but it also was forcing the issue at the same time.

My point really is, WHY does it need a name?

 

[Tinypony]

Cos I likes to chuck a spanner in the works every so often.... Of course, what we are thinking of as 'neutral reinforcement' could also be termed negative reinforcement... the horse moves off a leg aid (for example) and is reinforced by having the leg aid removed... and as long as the horse continues to offer the behaviour, the reinforcement persists because the leg aid is not reapplied. You coudl term that 'neutral reinforcement' because you are not doing anything in terms of the leg aid, but actually IMO it is negative reinforcement.

I agree Spudlet, I wondered if BH was describing -R as well.

 

[fburton]

I thought most terms relate more to dog's, horses don't need food reward because it is all around then naturally. This was on the last thread.

Food rewards are important to horses in their natural setting. First is the reward that a foal gets from locating the milk bar. Second and less obvious is the reward that adult horses get when they find sweeter (and hence more nutritious) forage. This is the reason horses like sweet things. What would be the point otherwise? Hence they actively seek out the best forage available. It's not something we usually notice them doing even though it's probably going on most of the time they are grazing.

 

[fburton]

If there was ever a case for neutral reinforcement I would define it as the time the horse spends living quietly between once successful training session and the next. That is when horses really learn.

There's already a phrase for this: latent learning.

 

[Spudlet]

Postive and negative reinforcement and punishment are terms widely used in dog training, but they apply to all conditioning of all animals (including people!) and every horse person will have used them, even without applying those terms.

In this context:
Positive does not equal good. It means adding something to a situation.

Negative means taking something away.

Reinforcement means something that increases the incidence or intensity of a behaviour.

Punishment means something that decreases the incidence or intensity of a behaviour.

So:

Positive reinforcement. The horse does something, and therefore the trainer adds something rewarding to the situation. This does not mean food - a HUGE pet hate of mine is when people dismiss positive reinforcement as just stuffing your animal full of treats! a word of praise, a stroke or pat, a scratch of the itchy spot, a good gallop (for example, as a reward for standing patiently) - all positive reinforcers.

Negative reinforcement. The horse does something, and as a result an irritating stimulus is withdrawn. Leg aid is applied - horse walks forward - leg aid is removed.

Positive punishment. The horse does something undesirable, and the trainer therefore adds something unpleasant to the situation to decrease this behaviour. A slap, a shout, a yank of the reins etc. Of course if the timing is off the animal might not associate the behaviour with the punishment... should be used with caution and as sparingly as possible.

Negative punishment. The horse does something undesirable, and the trainer therefore removes something from the situation to decrease the behaviour. You are standing by your horse's stable, and it sticks its head over the door and barges you hard for attention, so you ignore the horse and walk away.

ALL training is in fact conditioning, and every trainer will have used positive or negative reinforcement and punishment - the words just categorise the types of stimuli that we use, getting us as trainers to think about what we are doing.

Hope this helps

 

[Changes]

I think in that case it was simply approach and retreat.
Sometimes it's useful to be able to have a "label" (although I'm not sure that's quite the right word) because it makes it easy for people to understand what you mean. Just as we might understand what a half-halt means, we may clearly understand what approach and retreat is, because it's common terminology. We can't all go about being wafty and saying we just used good instinctive horsemanship to sort out the problem with the horse that didn't like bridles, because it wouldn't help anyone to really know what we did.
I'm not sure that the phrase neutral reinforcement is going to further understanding in the world of horsemanship though. Sorry BH, I'm saying that with a bit of a grin.

Sorry, just reread this properly...

It wasn't the bridling video that I was referring to, it was the horse that bucked, but the first stage.

I don't think you can use the example of half-halt in the same context. That is a definite aid, to collect the horse and encourage him to sit more.

The labels are about a style of approach in umbrella terms, and very much open to interpretation, as proven on here. There's no more clarity having terminology that is unclear, than having none at all. I think there's a huge danger in inexperienced people learning how to train horses (especially problem ones) from boxes and descriptions.
All comprehensive training should take from all of these approaches and tailor the work/programme to the needs of the individual horse.

It's important to read the horse and see what he needs. If a trainer finds that difficult, then how can a decision be made about which label to apply?

At the end of the day, they're horses, and simplifying their training is paramount. Read the horse, not books.

 

[better half]

Thank you Spudlet and Fburton for your points really interesting.
TinyPony if it was just approach and retreat it would be working in the middle Ithink if anything he works in the middle of the middle ground not to hard not to soft. another point would be 50:50 which is also not easy in terms of humans and dogs but how horses work and they will work with us on this level. i think just knowing it is possible is a start.

 

[Booboos]

Very interesting thread!

I haven't seen the video some people are referring to, so just going from the discussion so far... I also find the term neutral reinforcement puzzling as it is oxymoronic. Remaining calm and reassuring is a form of positive reinforcement, especially when it comes to flight creatures like horses, so it sounds to me that this is what is happening here. Some forms of positive reinforcement are easy to observe, e.g. trainer gives a treat, while others, e.g. trainer takes a deep breath, are more difficult for the observer to pick up on. I don't think either is more aggressive or flooding, it's just a matter of finding what the particular animal finds rewarding and concentrating on that. A pat could be scary for a really wound up animal, while a sigh might be reasuring, in which case only the latter counts as reward in this context.

As for doing nothing, it has always had a big role to play in operant conditioning. If behaviour that is rewarded is re-inforced, then behaviour that is not rewarded is not re-inforced, so ignoring bad behaviour is a common training tip for stopping it. Another time when doing nothing is appropriate is to allow the animal to figure things out for himself and offer the correct behaviour by himself, e.g. you reward the correct behaviour three times in a row and then do nothing, waiting for the animal to think back to the last behaviour that was reward it and repeat it.

I do share the concern of some posters in this thread over using made up terms that are poorly understood and confusing to refer to practices that can actually be very helpful to others, especially if they were related in a clearer way. I appreciate it's not always easy for people who have a natural talent for training to articulate what they are doing but describing what they do as if it occurs in a vacuum away from what anyone else has ever done or studied doesn't really help.

 

[amandap]

I don't think you can use the example of half-halt in the same context. That is a definite aid, to collect the horse and encourage him to sit more.

The labels are about a style of approach in umbrella terms, and very much open to interpretation, as proven on here. There's no more clarity having terminology that is unclear, than having none at all. I think there's a huge danger in inexperienced people learning how to train horses (especially problem ones) from boxes and descriptions.

I do think this is the nub. Training consists of teaching a horse to understand what you want by teaching the horse to respond quietly and readily to a cue. To me this applies across ALL we do with horses, from 'manners' at all times including loose in the field, leading, and all aspects of riding. Learning about ways that horses and all mammals learn and applying it is imo different from how well and at what level this is done. Provided the training methodology is reasonably clear and consistant, it comes down to a large degree to personal preference and personal ethics...

All comprehensive training should take from all of these approaches and tailor the work/programme to the needs of the individual horse.

I agree the basics of learning and training are fundamental, how they are used has to be flexible to take account of individual horses and I would add trainers/owners here too.

TinyPony if it was just approach and retreat it would be working in the middle Ithink if anything he works in the middle of the middle ground not to hard not to soft. another point would be 50:50 which is also not easy in terms of humans and dogs but how horses work and they will work with us on this level. i think just knowing it is possible is a start.

I see what you are saying here but to me this is still negative reinforcement in the main and is perhaps an example of 'skill' rather than a new phenomenon? (to use fburton's word)

 

[Tinypony]

I must admit, it sounds to me as if BH's hubby may be a good horseman, but not that he's doing anything particulary different to other good horsemen. I think they aim to work in that neutral area you're talking about BH, but I can't see that neutral reinforcement really works as a description. Why bother with the label?

(I mentioned bridling as an example, sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to what I'd seen in the video).

 

[better half]

When my OH did large demo’s in Denmark, Copenhagen Vet School wanted to work with OH as they could not work out if he was systematically desensitising or flooding as the process was so fast. It would help to know if it is science or art to get horses to start looking for answers again.

The Middle Ground Theory
Mr BH firmly believes that there is not a bad horse born. There may be bad horses about but they certainly didn’t start like that. Some are easier to get on with than others but all have some softness in them that can be developed if we know how to do it. The ‘middle ground theory’ helps people understand how to work with horses a little better.

‘All horses have an area of tolerance in which you can work with certain amount of inconsistency without causing any problems to either of you. Provided you work within this area of tolerance (or middle ground), you can be too hard sometimes and the horse won’t resent you. On the other hand, you may be too soft on the horse, and he won’t exploit you. In other words, the relationship can go slightly out of balance without doing permanent damage.
However, if you work outside the limits of the middle ground, too hard or too easy, too fast or too slow, you will begin to damage the relationship. You will cause the horse to become less and less generous and the middle ground eventually becomes a fine line as you eroded the horse’s tolerance, and at this point he is usually considered to be a problem horse. It can look like there isn’t a single bit of softness left in him.’
Mr BH has not met a horse that he could not help by widening the fine line to give the owner or rider room to work in again. He can achieve this with most horses on a home visit. Although, more extreme or established ridden issues, may need to come to stay for consolidated training.

 

[Tinypony]

I don't want to upset you BH because we have good chats, so I'll probably bow out of the thread after this. What you describe is very nice, but you are describing something that should and is seen with many good trainers. Sometimes the "fine line" is described as a tiny small circle in the middle of much larger ones where the horse is less "generous" (or possibly tolerant, or scared). Good trainers aim to keep horses in the area where they feel safe, tolerant, comfortable or whatever you want to call it, and to help them to extend that zone. I can understand what you are saying, and I think to use the term "neutral reinforcement" might be misleading and could lead people to misunderstand what is meant. Just my view, others will be sure to disagree with me.
I'm surprised that scientists couldn't decide if what they were seeing was desensitsation or flooding. What conclusion did they come to?

 

[amandap]

Better half what you describe in your latest post definitely sounds like skill to me. Skill of knowing where those lines are with a particular horse, skill of balancing leadership, teaching and learning whilst keeping the horse 'intact' mentally...

 

[better half]

I don't want to upset you BH because we have good chats, so I'll probably bow out of the thread after this.

Tinypony you are not upsetting me at all the only way to learn it to be honest and open and I feel you are being very polite and have some good point that are worth looking into. It would make my life easier to be able to explain more but I have and HND in microbiology not behaviour so it all helps.

We never went back to Denmark after OH got a bit 'nappy' at the airport and then the Uni would not pay for the trip they said OH should be greatful for the honour of being asked and do the trip for nothing he just Thanked them for the Honour.

 

[AengusOg]

There's already a phrase for this: latent learning.

I appreciate that.

The point I was making was that the only true way to be neutral with a horse is to turn him away and leave him alone. As has been mentioned already, there is always something going on between horse and handler if they are together.

 

[optimistic pessimist]

Mrs BH - Why not leave your posts to your husband. Not a good idea to try and convey concepts like these without a good grasp of the english language.

 

[Jane1706]

Mrs BH - Why not leave your posts to your husband. Not a good idea to try and convey concepts like these without a good grasp of the english language.

Harsh Optimistic Pessimist but nothing that I have been thinking for months now

Maybe BH and Mr BH would be better employing a proper marketing company who can explain things better than they can.....of course that would cost money