When working with horses, it is frequently asserted that horses have an inherent understanding of harsh voice cues that would be used as reprimands versus soothing voice cues that may be used as positive reinforcers/calming modifiers. If horses are unable to understand this difference, handlers often make poor assumptions that potentially lead to unfair training. A total of 95 horses from 4 different locations in US and Europe were randomly assigned to either soothing voice treatment (SV; n=52) or harsh voice treatment (HV; n=43). The learning task involved horses of various breeds and ages learning to cross a tarpaulin. Methodology was standardised across locations. SV involved handlers saying “good horse” in a soft, soothing manner whenever horses made forward progress toward the tarpaulin. HV involved saying “quit it” in a loud, harsh manner whenever horses made forward progress toward the tarpaulin. PRAAT software was used to assess similarities in vocal spectrograms of different handlers/treatments. Mean pitch for SV was 244.4±3.11 Hz and 275.1±2.01 Hz for HV; both well within the equine hearing range. Average intensity (loudness) for SV was 42.3±1.04 dB and 56.0±1.80 for HV. Contrary to our hypotheses, risk of failing the task (> 10 min to cross the tarpaulin for the 1st time) was not different between treatments (25% failures SV; 25.5% failures HV; p=0.55). Also, for those horses who did cross the tarpaulin, the total time to achieve calmness criterion (crossing with little/no obvious anxiety) did not differ between treatments (157.3±59.8 sec HV vs 245.8±43.5 SV, p=0.23. A breed difference was noted: Hot bloods=606.8±145.9 sec vs Warm bloods=120.7±18.3 sec, p<0.01. Polar heart rate monitors were used on 68 horses. There was no difference between average HR of horses who crossed (84.7±3.9 bpm) vs those who failed (82.1±5.1) p=0.69. There was also no difference between HV horses (85.4±4.8 bpm) and SV horses (81.3±4.2) p=0.52.
Do horses recognize the difference between harsh tones and soothing tones when using voice as a reinforcer for learning a frightening task / C.R. Heleski, C. Wickens, M. Wright, S. Fraze, M. Minero, E. Dalla Costa, C. Wu, E. Czeszak, U. Koenig von Borstel - In: The road ahead : 8th International equitation science conference, 18th - 20th July 2012, Royal (Dick) Veterinary School, Edinburgh / [a cura di] H. Randle, N. Waran, J. Williams. - Penicuik : BSAS & Duchy College Print, 2012. - ISBN 978-0-906562-72-7. - pp. 140-140 (( Intervento presentato al 8. convegno International Equitation Science Conference tenutosi a Edinburgh nel 2012.
Do horses recognize the difference between harsh tones and soothing tones when using voice as a reinforcer for learning a frightening task
M. MineroUltimo
;E. Dalla CostaPrimo
;
2012
Abstract
When working with horses, it is frequently asserted that horses have an inherent understanding of harsh voice cues that would be used as reprimands versus soothing voice cues that may be used as positive reinforcers/calming modifiers. If horses are unable to understand this difference, handlers often make poor assumptions that potentially lead to unfair training. A total of 95 horses from 4 different locations in US and Europe were randomly assigned to either soothing voice treatment (SV; n=52) or harsh voice treatment (HV; n=43). The learning task involved horses of various breeds and ages learning to cross a tarpaulin. Methodology was standardised across locations. SV involved handlers saying “good horse” in a soft, soothing manner whenever horses made forward progress toward the tarpaulin. HV involved saying “quit it” in a loud, harsh manner whenever horses made forward progress toward the tarpaulin. PRAAT software was used to assess similarities in vocal spectrograms of different handlers/treatments. Mean pitch for SV was 244.4±3.11 Hz and 275.1±2.01 Hz for HV; both well within the equine hearing range. Average intensity (loudness) for SV was 42.3±1.04 dB and 56.0±1.80 for HV. Contrary to our hypotheses, risk of failing the task (> 10 min to cross the tarpaulin for the 1st time) was not different between treatments (25% failures SV; 25.5% failures HV; p=0.55). Also, for those horses who did cross the tarpaulin, the total time to achieve calmness criterion (crossing with little/no obvious anxiety) did not differ between treatments (157.3±59.8 sec HV vs 245.8±43.5 SV, p=0.23. A breed difference was noted: Hot bloods=606.8±145.9 sec vs Warm bloods=120.7±18.3 sec, p<0.01. Polar heart rate monitors were used on 68 horses. There was no difference between average HR of horses who crossed (84.7±3.9 bpm) vs those who failed (82.1±5.1) p=0.69. There was also no difference between HV horses (85.4±4.8 bpm) and SV horses (81.3±4.2) p=0.52.
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
