Behavioural Processes 76 (2007) 4344

Commentary

Equine learning behaviour: Limits of ability and ability limits of trainers

Emma Creighton
Chester Centre for Stress Research, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Chester, Chester CH1 4BJ, UK Received 13 November 2006; accepted 13 November 2006

Towards the end of their review, Murphy and Arkins (2007) point out that for horses to successfully adapt to domestic life, they must learn to suppress instinctive responses and learn alternative behaviour that is acceptable to their trainers and that ts within the constraints of the domestic environment. We ask a lot from a plains living prey species when we bring it into the connes of a stable, ask it suppress its ee instincts and instead learn to problem solve the commands of its riders. Yet, as Murphy and Arkins (2007) acknowledge, despite the high economic and companion value humans place on their horses, there is surprisingly low levels of understanding of the learning ability of horses, and there is lamentably scant evidence of knowledge and application of the principles of learning by their trainers (McClean and McGreevy, 2004). Murphy and Arkins (2007) introduce us to Thomas (1986) hierarchy of learning ability (Table 1), which provides a framework for hanging research evidence to support a review of learning abilities in horses. The rst three levels of this hierarchy are the basic building blocks of horse training. (1) Habitation to environmental stimuli to suppress instinctive ee responses so horses are safe to manage and ride; and sensitisation to cues given as aids. (2) Classical conditioning of commands to unconditional stimuli to elicit a desired response is an essential part of training, for example substituting a voice command for a ick of a lunging whip. (3) Simple operant conditioning of desirable responses is usually based upon negative reinforcement, with positive reinforcement of the desired behavioural response and punishment of the undesirable from the range of potential responses made by the horse. The fourth learning ability level, chaining operant responses, forms part of more advanced training where the horse is asked to perform a series of moves before being reinforced. Good trainers

Tel.: +44 1244 513046; fax: +44 1244 511346. E-mail address: E.Creighton@chester.ac.uk.

are clearly able to achieve this as evidenced by dressage maneuvers; indicating that this type of learning is also within the animals scope, though there may be some doubt over the ability of all trainers to achieve such operant chains. Beyond a treatment of the largely discredited concept of foal imprinting, Murphy and Arkins (2007) mostly skip over these four steps in the hierarchy, perhaps because at least the rst three are so obviously involved in the basic training of horses. However, a critical review of the eld requires that we acknowledge the evidence of horses ability to learn at all levels. McGreevy (2004) provides a clear account of the theory of each of the rst four levels of learning ability and illustrates their application to the basic training of horses. It is clear from this review that habituation, sensitisation, classical conditioning, basic operant conditioning and chaining of operant responses are within the cognitive capacity of horses. Effective training using these abilities depends upon trainers correctly and accurately manipulating the training environment so that patterns of aids, reinforcers or punishers conform to the principles of learning and learning occurs. The most important of these principles in associative learning are contingency, continuity and schedules of reinforcement (Domjan, 2003; McGreevy, 2004). Contingency refers to the consistency of chains of events so that conditional stimuli reliably cue unconditional stimuli in classical conditioning, and reinforcers or punishers reliably follow behavioural responses in operant conditioning. Continuity refers to the relationship in time of these events, with associations forming only when events follow within seconds of each other. Schedules of reinforcement are important in operant conditioning, when initial learning requires a 1:1 ratio, but maintenance is most effective with higher and more variable ratios. Unfortunately there is very little emphasis on the correct application of these principles in traditional horse training methods (McGreevy, 2004), despite the great advances in the application of learning theory to training other animals

0376-6357/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2006.11.008

44

E. Creighton / Behavioural Processes 76 (2007) 4344

(Pryor, 1999). Murphy and Arkins (2007) acknowledge research demonstrating a loss of association formation with continuity of greater than 10 s, commenting that this creates a challenge for trainers. However, until knowledge of learning theory and understanding of its application become more widespread, the ability of trainers to achieve the learning potential of their horses will remain limited and horses will continue to suffer at the hands of frustrated trainers (McClean and McGreevy, 2004). Murphy and Arkins (2007) provide a more detailed review of the research evidence for concurrent discriminations as the fth level of Thomas learning hierarchy. They demonstrate that horses are able to discriminate between concurrent stimuli in a range of operant tasks, though there appears to be a strong primacy effect in reversal learning experiments, and spatial location is more easily understood that other stimulus properties. Discrimination learning is evident in training when horses are taught to respond to more specic elements of a trained command so that aids become more subtle. This is achieved, as in concurrent discrimination experiments, by reinforcing responses to the desired element and ignoring other responses; though McClean and McGreevy (2004) advocate an additional slight punishment of responses to the elements to be discriminated against. As concurrent discriminations appear to be within the cognitive capacity of horses, one must conclude that the relative rarity of the use of subtle aids in riding illustrates the ability limits of trainers rather than the ability of horses to learn. Of the three highest levels of learning in Thomas hierarchy, Murphy and Arkins (2007) address concept learning where they report there is some research evidence to support horses ability to form concepts and use these to problem solve in novel situations. McClean and McGreevy (2004) note that in such experiments horses take some time to grasp the concept, but having done so, their responses become more rapid and accurate. They describe a similar phenomenon in dressage horses that, when they have learned to apply their understanding of basic groundwork to high school manoeuvres, enter a steep learning curve that takes their training up to very advanced levels. So concept learning appears to be within the cognitive grasp of horses, but is applied in horse training only at the most advanced levels, again illustrating the limits on training arising out of ability limits of trainers rather than horses, ability to learn. The two highest levels of Thomas hierarchy are not addressed by Murphy and Arkins (2007) as presumably there is no research literature to back up their existence in horses. But

one wonders if this is because no research has been conducted or because horses have failed to demonstrate learning ability at this level, despite the excitement and subsequent disappointment surrounding Clever Hans apparent mathematical genius. Murphy and Arkins (2007) report no experimental evidence for social learning in horses beyond an increase in motivation by the observer horse to investigate the apparatus that yielded rewards to the instructor horse. Though interestingly, traditional views hold that hoses learn stable vices (stereotypic behaviour) from each other. Fortunately this myth has largely been debunked as better understanding of the development of stereotypies suggests that outbreaks on any particular yard are more likely to result from a shared poor welfare (McGreevy, 2004) than any ability to acquire them by social learning. Murphy and Arkins (2007) nish their review with reference to the ethology of feral horses and some functional explanations of observed behaviour. Claims are made by some contemporary trainers that they use alternative training methods based around a detailed understanding of species ethology with, in some cases, an explicit rejection of learning theory. Whilst such attitudes may have marketing appeal to owners weary of the abuse arising from poor trainers who lack understanding of learning theory, such attitudes are at best misleading and at worse potentially harmful. Technically, of course, principles of learning are part of the animals ethology. But skill in the application of learning theory demands in the trainer the ability to recognise the motivational state of the horse. Then its responses can be predicted and the trainer can adapt their behaviour to capture or redirect them as required. So horsemanship is indeed served by detailed knowledge of functional patterns of species typical behaviour (Rees, 1997), but not at the expense of learning to correctly apply learning theory. A good trainer must have both. References
Domjan, M., 2003. The Principles of Learning and Behaviour, 5th ed. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont. McClean, A., McGreevy, P., 2004. Training. In: Equine Behaviour: A Guide to Vetinarians and Equine Scientists. W.B. Saunders, Edinburgh. McGreevy, P., 2004. Equine Behaviour: A Guide to Veterinarians and Equine Scientists. W.B. Saunders, Edinburgh. Murphy, J., Arkins, S., 2007. Equine learning behaviour. Behav. Process. Pryor, K., 1999. Dont Shoot the Dog! The New Art of Teaching and Training. Bantam Press, New York. Rees, L., 1997. The Horses Mind. Ebury Press, London.