Elephant Training Techniques PDF

4.2 Core study 2: Fagen et al. (elephant learning) Fagen, A., Acharya, N., & Kaufman, G. E. (2014). Positive reinforcement training for a trunk wash in Nepal\'s working elephants: demonstrating alternatives to traditional elephant training techniques. Journal of applied animal welfare science, 17(...

4.2 Core study 2: Fagen et al. (elephant learning) Fagen, A., Acharya, N., & Kaufman, G. E. (2014). Positive reinforcement training for a trunk wash in Nepal\'s working elephants: demonstrating alternatives to traditional elephant training techniques. Journal of applied animal welfare science, 17(2): 83-97. The psychology being investigated The term operant conditioning is used simply to mean learning from the outcome of our behaviour. For example, when we perform a behaviour that has a good consequence, we are more likely to repeat it. Psychologists would state that this behaviour has been reinforced. Positive reinforcers might include food or praise. Another type of reinforcement is negative reinforcement; when something unpleasant is removed or avoided in response to a stimulus. One example of this could be going outside and feeling unpleasantly cold (stimulus) and then putting on a coat (response). We quickly learn that putting on more clothes keeps us warm (reinforcement). Description of training technique How it works/ how we can see if it works Some reinforcers occur naturally. These include things which help us to survive such as water, food, shelter or sleep. Alternatively, secondary reinforcers have to be learned, and are associated with primary reinforcers. Money is one example as it can help us to acquire food, water, shelter and so on. The theory of operant conditioning can explain how humans and animals develop complex behaviours. The behaviour of humans and animals can be shaped gradually. A good example of this is how children are rewarded with praise as they learn to speak. At first a child\'s vocalisations might sound only slightly like real words, but with encouragement these words become more accurate and the child\'s speech is very clear. Also simple, individual actions can be combined in sequences or \`behaviour chains\'. Like riding a bicycle, the rider must first learn to pedal, then steer, then balance on two wheels. However, the theory does not try to explain underlying, unseen reasons for behaviour, such as thoughts or feelings. According to operant conditioning theorists, the majority of behaviours are learned through trial and error. Traditionally, captive elephants are given \'free\' (unlimited) contact with their handlers (known as mahouts) and elephant behaviour is managed using punishment (Figure 4.3). This form of operant conditioning relies on unpleasant stimulus such as pain or fear to shape behaviour. One type of punishment used to shape elephant behaviour is the pain inflicted by a bamboo stick. However, because of concerns for captive animal welfare and keeper safety, there is increased interest in reward-based training (positive reinforcement ) using \'protected\' contact (a barrier between elephant and handler). In particular, positive reinforcement methods have been shown to improve the psychological well-being of elephants (Desmond & Laule, 1991). One type of positive reinforcement training is secondary positive reinforcement (SPR) training. This method teaches animals to associate specific sounds with food; specific noises like these are called \'markers\' or \'sound-markers\'. Once the animal is conditioned to the sound-marker relationships, the marker can be used to reward wanted behaviours. Using a sound marker is better than rewarding with food on its own as the marker can precisely indicate to the animal when it has correctly performed the desired behaviour, whereas there is a delay for preparing and delivering food. To maintain the association between secondary and primary reinforcer, food rewards are still given at intervals. Background Diagnosing and treating illness in elephants is an important part of captive animal welfare. In order to avoid using traditional methods such as punishment, Fagen et al. investigated the use of SPR training to teach elephants to reliably and voluntarily engage in a trunk washing procedure designed to maintain their well-being. SPR has been used successfully with several animal species, including pandas, primates and antelope. One advantage the method offers is the ability to shape captive animals\' behaviour to help improve their health and well-being. In this study the focus of using SPR was as a method for detecting tuberculosis in elephants. Tuberculosis is a serious respiratory disease which is a significant concern in the captive elephant population, and can be passed between animal and human. The disease is best detected through taking a sample from the elephant\'s trunk through a \'trunk wash\' method. However, getting elephants to trunk wash correctly can be challenging, with many samples being insufficient for testing. Aim The aim of this study was to see whether free-contact, traditionally trained elephants can be trained to participate in a trunk wash by using positive reinforcement. Method Research method and design This was a controlled observation involving a small group of elephants living in captivity who were trained over a period of weeks. The researchers watched the elephants\' behaviour in response to a specific stimulus, and used a behavioural checklist to record the elephants\' responses as a percentage pass. This means the study can also be described as a structured observation. Sample This study included five female elephants: four juveniles and one adult, all housed at the same elephant stable in Nepal. The juveniles were between 5 and 7 years old and had been born at the stable. The adult elephant was estimated to have been in her 50s. The elephants were chosen from others at the stable as they were docile, not currently pregnant or looking after a calf and their mahouts were willing to take part in the study. The elephants were all traditionally trained and in free contact with their mahouts. None of the elephants had previous experience of SPR. The elephants spent most of the day grazing in the jungle under the control of their mahouts. They spent the rest of the day leg-chained in a stable with the freedom to move 6-8 feet (1.83-2.4 m) around the stake. The elephants\' diet was fresh grasses, grain and nutritional supplements and they were given access to water at a river during grazing hours. Procedure The method of training used in this study was SPR, with chopped banana as the primary reinforcer and a short whistle blow as the secondary reinforcer. Training was conducted tunng te indoor sessions (7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) by a trainer, with the mahout present for safety. The mahouts stood to the side and did not speak to or signal to the elephants. No elephant went longer than two days without a training session. Elephants could choose not to engage with a session by turning or walking away from the trainer. The purpose of training was to teach the elephants to perform a voluntary trunk wash in several behavioural steps, actively moving their trunks in response to a cue. After establishing the marker-reward relationships (banana-whistle), elephants were taught using the following three methods:. Capture: waiting for animal to perform a behaviour naturally then \'capturing\' it by marking it with a reward Lure: for non-natural behaviours, an animals is \'lured\' into a certain body position by placing a reward in a certain place Shaping: after starting either capture or lure, rewards are then only given for the behaviours that are \'best\', i.e. incrementally closer to the goal behaviour task Using these training methods, elephants were trained to do the following behavioural tasks Trunk here, to allow for saline or water to be instilled into trunk Trunk up, to allow saline or water to run to the base of the Elephant lifts trunk upwards trunk Bucket, to allow placement of trunk into bucket ready to exhale Blow, to exhale the sample for collection There were three other tasks (targeting, trunk down, trunk out) that were introduced, but partway through the training were discarded as they are not essential for the performance of a trunk wash. After the elephant performed the individual behavioural tasks, each task was then paired with a verbal cue. The verbal cue was a one-syllable word with no meaning in English or Nepali to avoid having any meaning to the elephants or mahouts. Once all the behavioural tasks were established, the trainers put the behaviours together in small sequences in a process known as behaviour chaining. This technique meant that performing the first behaviour in a sequence correctly earned the animal the chance to perform the second behaviour correctly and gain a reward. Separate behavioural tasks were at first paired (starting with bucket and blow), then put together in longer sequences until they formed the entire trunk wash procedure. In addition, the trainer also introduced the use of a syringe to the trunk-here position. This was done incrementally using a desensitisation method. Over a series of repetitions of the whole trunk wash sequence, the syringe was gradually brought closer to the elephant\'s trunk, then touching the trunk, then inserted, then inserted with increasing amounts of fluid until the elephant tolerated the full 60ml required for sample collection. To avoid the elephants drinking the saline or water, they were offered drinks before each training session. One elephant preferred drinking saline and would drink the saline solution after rejecting the drinking water, so was switched to a water solution for the behavioural task. There was no time limit put on each stage of the training process; it was determined by the success of the individual elephant meaning that the training plans varied according to the individual elephant\'s needs. An assistant recorded the length of each training session in minutes. The assistant recorded the total number of times the elephant was given a cue or \'offer\' for behaviour. After Session 10, elephants were tested approximately every five sessions on previously taught behaviours. A passing score was 80% (i.e. eight or more correct out of ten offers/cues). Once the 80% or higher score had been achieved on a sequence this was considered a \'pass\'. Once the whole behavioural sequence was \'passed\' at a rate of 80% or higher, the training was considered complete. RESEARCH METHODS It was important in terms of validity that the mahouts did not assist with the training. For this reason, they did not speak or signal to the elephants. Verbal cues used in the study were also designed to be distinct from other verbal cues the mahouts used with the elephants. This was an important control in the study. Results It was found that the four juvenile elephants successfully learned the trunk wash, however, the adult elephant did not (see Table 4.4). Elephants 2 and 4 never passed their steady test, but were able to pass their full trunk wash tests. Elephant 5 did not pass her blow-into-bucket, desensitisation to syringe or steady test. There are a number of factors which may have influenced the behaviour of elephant 5. She was older and likely had both some visual impairment and trunk weakness. The elephant was reported as being distracted and inpatient during the last week of the study and had a foot abscess during this period. Also, a calf from an adjacent stall interrupted some of her sessions by entering the training area. Another result was that some behavioural tasks were more difficult than others. For example, the trunk-here task required more offers/cues than the bucket or blow-into-bucket The elephants gradually improved their performance over time (see Figure 4.5). The mean success rate went from 39% after 10 sessions of training to 89.3% after 35 sessions or tramig As a structured observation, the study collected quantitative data in the form of correct behavioural responses to the verbal cues/offers. This allows us to make an objective analysis of whether or not the SPR was a successful method for learning the trunk wash. Quantitative data is also easier to analyse, compared with unstructured observations. Conclusion The researchers concluded from this study that juvenile, free-contact, traditionally trained elephants can be trained to participate in a trunk wash using only SPR training techniques. Moreover, this training can be carried out with the voluntary participation of the elephants, avoiding punishment, to produce reliable results. Strengths and weaknesses This study involved a small group of female elephants.Using a small sample in a psychological study can make it difficult to generalise the results to a larger population. As the elephants were captive animals from one elephant stable, it would be hard to say that they are representative of the general population. The researchers mention that elephants were chosen for their temperament (docile). Because of their large size, elephants can pose a risk to themselves and humans, which is a major challenge for those conducting research with them. Other practical challenges included trying to control for distractions to the elephants. The presence of tourists and other elephants during the training sessions might have affected the elephants\' concentration or willingness to participate. Controlled observations such as this can be easily replicated, using the same observation schedule. This means the study can be tested for reliability. However, the researchers state that the training sessions were flexible to suit the mood and ability of each animal. If this study was repeated with other elephants, it is likely that the experience of the trainer and personalities/conditions in which elephants were kept (e.g. their stress levels, previous experience of SPR training) could affect the results. This creates an issue for reliability. There were attempts to maintain the validity of the research; for example, the mahouts were asked to not speak to or give signals to the elephants. The verbal cues given had no meaning in Nepali or English. Both of these controls limited the influence of demand characteristics on the elephants\' responses to the tests. As a structured observation, the study collected quantitative data in the form of correct behavioural responses to the verbal cues/offers. This allows us to make an objective analysis of whether or not the SPR was a successful method for learning the trunk wash. Quantitative data is also easier to analyse, compared with unstructured observations. Ethical issues When using animals as participants, different sorts of ethical issues must be considered. In this instance, the elephants were reported to be well treated and did not appear to have been physically harmed as a result of the research. The elephants were able to graze freely for a large portion of the day, were fed adequately and were able to socialise with the other elephants in the jungle. Investigating the effectiveness of positive reinforcement training in elephants that are already captive rather than capturing and using wild animals is a more ethical approach. The study was carried out with the intention of developing a method for producing useable trunk wash samples. The purpose of this was to help with captive management of elephants and to enable tuberculosis to be quickly diagnosed and treated, which is highly beneficial to the elephants. The researchers actively avoided using punishment and instead focused on a training method which minimised harm to the animals. Summary Fagen et al.\'s study used a small group of five female elephants to show that trunk washing can be learned through positive reinforcement. Through a lengthy process of training and testing, researchers were able to establish that most of the animals could perform a series of actions designed to act as a health check. This was a controlled observation with a small sample meaning it had limited generalisability and could be difficult to replicate. Using objective, quantitative measures of correct responses, however, did show that juvenile elephants can learn trunk washing using SPR training.