This is Part 3 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin
Dr. Jones graduated with her PhD in Behavior Analysis from West Virginia University in 2021. Her primary research focuses on effects of implementer errors that occur during well-established behavioral treatments. To meet this aim, she conducts laboratory and applied research with the aim of supporting development of robust behavioral interventions. She started teaching and conducting research at Salve Regina University in 2021 and is the principal investigator for the Translational Research and Applied Intervention Lab.
IN PART 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy.
In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science?
Stephanie began by describing the shaping procedures they used with the goats at River Haven. In one context the criteria was changed when the goat had successfully met the current criterion three times in a row. In the second context a latency component was added. The goat had to meet the criterion within a certain time period which was determined by the goat’s own previous performance.
I described the metaphor of shaping from the wide versus the narrow end of the funnel and what it means to shape using narrow end of the funnel thinking.
In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule.
The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementor errors? Even in art there is technique.
If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background?
All content for Equiosity is the property of Equiosity and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
This is Part 3 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin
Dr. Jones graduated with her PhD in Behavior Analysis from West Virginia University in 2021. Her primary research focuses on effects of implementer errors that occur during well-established behavioral treatments. To meet this aim, she conducts laboratory and applied research with the aim of supporting development of robust behavioral interventions. She started teaching and conducting research at Salve Regina University in 2021 and is the principal investigator for the Translational Research and Applied Intervention Lab.
IN PART 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy.
In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science?
Stephanie began by describing the shaping procedures they used with the goats at River Haven. In one context the criteria was changed when the goat had successfully met the current criterion three times in a row. In the second context a latency component was added. The goat had to meet the criterion within a certain time period which was determined by the goat’s own previous performance.
I described the metaphor of shaping from the wide versus the narrow end of the funnel and what it means to shape using narrow end of the funnel thinking.
In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule.
The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementor errors? Even in art there is technique.
If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background?
Episode 347 Rick Hester, Amy Schilz, & Lucy Butler Pt 2 - Enrichment & Freeing Up The Operant
Equiosity
55 minutes 46 seconds
2 months ago
Episode 347 Rick Hester, Amy Schilz, & Lucy Butler Pt 2 - Enrichment & Freeing Up The Operant
For the episode we’re continuing our conversation with Rick Hester, Amy Shilze and Lucy Butler.
Rick is the Curator of Behavioral Husbandry for the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado. He oversees all the zoo's behavioral programming. His work includes the zoo's animal training for husbandry, medical, and public show behaviors, enrichment, developing programs to improve problem behavior situations, the zoo's formal animal welfare assessments, and exhibit design for behavior goals.
We’re also joined by Amy Schlis, who has the dream job of working with the Cheyanne Mountain zoo’s giraffe.
Amy is the Senior Animal Behaviorist for Cheyenne Mountain Zoo's International Center for the Care and Conservation of Giraffe, where she runs giraffe workshops and conferences, both stateside and internationally.
Both Rick and Amy also partner with Dr. Susan Friedman and her Behavior Works consulting team so you’ll hear a lot of references to Susan throughout this conversation.
In addition to Rick and Amy, I invited Lucy Butler to join us. Lucy and her husband run the River Haven Animal Sanctuary in Rhode Island. I knew she would have a lot of questions for Rick and Amy. When you take in animals who are the victims of abuse, there’s a lot to be learned from the work that goes on in zoos to reduce the stress of handling and also to improve the overall quality of life for the animals under their care.
In this episode Rick and Amy introduce the concept of freeing up the operant: what that means and how that impacts the implementation of enrichment opportunities for the animals under their care. This episode is rich with ideas for providing more enrichment for our horses.
Equiosity
This is Part 3 of a conversation with Lucy Butler of River Haven Animal Sanctuary, and Dr Stephanie Jones and her grad student, Sofia Abuin
Dr. Jones graduated with her PhD in Behavior Analysis from West Virginia University in 2021. Her primary research focuses on effects of implementer errors that occur during well-established behavioral treatments. To meet this aim, she conducts laboratory and applied research with the aim of supporting development of robust behavioral interventions. She started teaching and conducting research at Salve Regina University in 2021 and is the principal investigator for the Translational Research and Applied Intervention Lab.
IN PART 1 we talked about the common links between teaching people and working with animals. We talked about coercion, control, and most importantly about empathy.
In part 2 Stephanie described a pilot study she and her colleagues set up at the River Haven Animal Sanctuary. Shaping can be incredibly challenging to teach well. Often people refer to the science and the art of training. What Stephanie and her colleague Michael Yencha wanted to investigate is what makes up the “art” part of training? Is there a way to tease this apart so it becomes less mystery and more approachable through science?
Stephanie began by describing the shaping procedures they used with the goats at River Haven. In one context the criteria was changed when the goat had successfully met the current criterion three times in a row. In the second context a latency component was added. The goat had to meet the criterion within a certain time period which was determined by the goat’s own previous performance.
I described the metaphor of shaping from the wide versus the narrow end of the funnel and what it means to shape using narrow end of the funnel thinking.
In Part 3 Stephanie reminded us that the goal of this research was to help new trainers shape well. That was the reason for the latency criterion. They were using it to judge when to shift criteria. They weren’t looking at any other aspects of shaping. They weren’t looking at the details of the reinforcement strategy or the set up of the environment. They weren’t saying those elements aren’t important, but they wanted to focus on this one component and give it a good rule.
The question was how do you get robust interventions that aren’t influenced by implementor errors? Even in art there is technique.
If you give people this rule, does that mean learners will be better off because shapers are able to minimize exposure to extinction without even needing to know what it means to minimize exposure to extinction? Can new trainers shape well even when they are lacking experience and a broad theoretical background?
