I'm just reading an article in the latest edition of the PPG magazine, which talks about various training issues. One particular one being creating unwanted chains. The example it uses is, for a reactive dog lunging at something and you using "look at me" to counter it. So, the dog lunges, you use "look at me", the dog looks at you, performs another cue or whatever and gets his reward. He may then look at the object again, and lunge again, to which you repeat the, previously successful, cycle. You start to pre-empt these situations, by looking out for that scary object he's lunging at and saying "look at me" to get past it. However, the problem with this is that you're either reinforcing a whole chain of behaviours (lunge-"look at me"-treat, lunge-"look at me"-treat) or, if you're pre-empting, you're letting him know there's something to gear up for ("look at me"-dog looks for what he's supposed to react to). If you compare this to the technique of "look at that", described in Control Unleashed, I think it shows LAT has profound advantages. If you're not familiar with the technique, it basically makes anything the dog would reactive the cue itself; you don't say "look at that". You start off by clicking as soon as your dog looks at the thing he's unsure of, and giving him a treat. C&T for each and every glance in that direction, and slowly extend the time before the click. You eventually end up with a dog that sees the object and immediately turns, effectively uncued as far as you're concerned (although the cue is the object) towards you for his treat. If you do this in enough situations, you can end up with a dog that looks to you whenever he sees anything he'd otherwise react to. I've had great success using LAT with Willow, who used to bark at anything unusual or startling - someone up a ladder, people coming around a corner unexpectedly, children, motorbikes ... now she very rarely barks at all. I've never really used "look at me" to get past things, because I use LAT instead. The article also mentions how it's unnatural - and potentially physically uncomfortable - for a dog to maintain eye contact for any length of time. I have, however, noticed that when I've used my attention-getting noise repeatedly in an area where there is often a cat, Shadow will look around to see where it is - in that particular location, he's realised that that noise means his furry friend may be about. Any other thoughts?
I'm going to have to think about this. Lilly will always look around to see what she is supposed to be ignoring when I call her in a certain way on our walk. I have to work out what I say to trigger her being on alert too..... I'm not sure if she would respond to a food reward at this time (or any reward, other than a chase) Hmmmm.
I think that's just about thresholds, though, isn't it? So, starting with something that's less distracting, or at a greater distance etc, is where you get your initial behaviour and then build on that. I'm going to use LAT with Shadow in Spain around other dogs and see how I get on. I tried at the game fair on the Sunday, but he was too overwhelmed by everything (in a scared way) to do anything useful in this regard.
LAT is all about looking at something and not reacting if there is fear or anxiety? Permission to look but not worry or react. Where as Look at Me would work more if you were trying to break focus? Such as the deer situation - to lower the threshold??
Blimey, I'm confused - I think I click and say 'look at me' and then treat - which sounds like a combination of the two methods. Am I doing this all wrong ? I'm not aware of creating an unwanted chain. I can remember my previous lab looking for what he should be ignoring when I used a certain tone; Ripple doesn't do this.
I just followed the book using Who'zt dog for Look at that because I already used LOOK for something else and Look at Me was taught to me as Watch Me. I agree, but I think they all have their advantages. There are times I want a Watch Me. And my Who'zat, after a few times, became an automatic Watch Me without me saying it. I remember it was still pretty new when I started and just as the book said, I'd walk into class saying Who'zat and the others walked in saying Watch Me (we all pretty well say this instead of Look at Me) but pretty soon I noticed more were following Leslie McDevitt and using my words or comparative ones. I also use what you call LAT to get past things, namely the big black dog who charges his fence at us. It works for us. Oban is leashed when we pass this dog's yard and he does respond to treats.
Yes, I guess that's the gist. The idea of LAT is that the dog learns that, instead of reacting (in whatever way you find undesirable) s/he looks to you for direction. So it could be used to change fear-based reactions into the expectation of something good, but in the same way, there's no reason, I suppose, why it couldn't be used to give self control to a chaser. In both instances, you'd have to start with your dog at a low enough arousal level that you get success, in order to condition the response. But Leslie McDevitt's "look at that" doesn't use any words. There is no verbal cue at all. If you're using a verbal cue, it doesn't matter what it is, you're using the "look at me" technique, which has the pitfalls laid out above, if used enough in the same chain repetitively. Maybe there's a different section of the book you're talking about that I've forgotten about! You need to be clear on the event marker vs the cue. You wouldn't normally give a cue (verbal or otherwise) after the event marker, so I'd say your "look at me" is superfluous at best. If you want to use a "look at me" cue, there's nothing wrong with that, and, like Jac mentioned, can be useful to break a dog's gaze if he's already staring. You just need to be aware of the pitfalls, and try to avoid building the chains that include the unwanted behaviours. And, if you wanted to use the verbal cue, you'd put it before the click, which would then only happen once Ripple looks at you.
I had another thought. There is no reason that the "LAM" technique could become the "LAT" technique, by simple cue switching methods. To change cues, you use new cue - old cue - reward, and gradually fade the old cue. So, if you take "LAM" as the old cue, and the dog/object/whatever as the new cue, then you can just try delaying you verbal cue to see if the dog chooses to look at you. I don't think this is as easy as starting with LAT from the get-go, though.
I don't have a reactive dog - I have an excitable dog. I think the difference is small in one way, but really important in another. I also can see how it is easy for (for example) a frustrated greeter to turn into a reactive dog. But my dog isn't a reactive dog, just hugely enthusiastic. So LAT in these circumstances for me worked a different way, and I think it is interesting. I never concentrated on the 'turn back to me' bit - that wasn't important to me. What I wanted him to do was to observe the world, and be calm about it. I really did think this was LAT (until I read more about it, and saw a few videos). I simply rewarded the microsecond between him seeing something and getting excited. He doesn't really look back at me now over his normal casual 'am I being good? got a treat for me?' thing. It was really effective all the same.
Just to add - for Charlie, he never wanted to look away, to avoid, or for the thing to go away - he wanted to get closer. So all I did was reward him resisting his urge to jump, pull, play up. He still looks. He wants to look! So LAT just ended up being 'look and be calm'.
So, what happens when you fade the click? Because that's what you do with LAT - as you do, click in the instant before the reaction, but gradually move the click back. The dog generally gives a very pointed look at the thing, and then at you, as if to say "Oi, did you see what I did? Where's my click?" and you click that instead. So, when you fade the click, do you get any of that sort of behaviour from Charlie?
I faded the click by drawing out the time. Charlie looked, didn't react, I clicked. Charlie looked for longer, didn't react, I clicked. In the end, I stopped clicking and Charlie just looked and was calm - he didn't look back. He will eventually, but no more than he would normally say 'is it about time for a treat?' (Apart from other dogs retrieving - working, not playing - that's still work in progress).
I think that's an important thing to acknowledge, too. My two want to look. For Shadow right now, he's suddenly started really wanting to get to other dogs (regardless of sex) when he's on lead, so it's excitement/frustration that I want to control. With Willow, it was fear, but I don't think that stopping her from looking was what she needed - it could have made her more anxious. The LAT technique didn't mean she looked and immediately turned away to lock her gaze on mine; in time, it just broke that instant reaction and let her take a breath to gather herself. I believe if I had used "look at me", I would have been putting a band-aid on the problem, and would have had to continue managing it by using LAM still today, whereas the reality is that she doesn't need any management anymore. She's learned to be more confident from having a coping mechanism when things are different or potentially startling.
Yes, it's just I've heard people say LAT is just the same as LAM (because it's just a different way of getting the dog to look at you). It just didn't work out like that for me. I ended up with a dog that is really relaxed on lead (even the - slightly useless - behaviourist commented on how relaxed Charlie is). But, maybe, that would have happened anyway. Who knows?
OK, so it's not that different. Maybe, again, that's about how aroused the dog is. I worked with Willow with things that I knew would set her off, but from far enough away at first that she wasn't that interested, so she wouldn't have stared and stared. So, if she looked and didn't get a click straight away, then, knowing the "game", she'd look at me almost immediately for the treat. Whereas if it was closer from the get-go, she'd have been more keen to keep her eye on it, and there would have been more opportunity to click for duration.
True, and maybe Willow would be exactly how she is now without using LAT, too. It's all good training for us, though, at least I think it says in Control Unleashed (although it might be something I read from some BAT stuff), that LAT is to get the dog to look to you for guidance; if they see you're calm, they can take reassurance from that and go about their business. I'm not sure I buy into that 100%, having struggled with a completely nutso dog at the end of a lead, who was certainly not getting any of the soothing vibes I was transmitting The way I interpret it, which may be completely wrong, is that "look at me" is cued by the handler and is an avoidance technique, whereby the dog looks at the handler until the distraction is past. Whereas "look at that" is a learnt self-management mechanism that needs no cue from the handler and allows the dog to stay relaxed, and continue to look where he likes; it just breaks that initial impulse to react.
That's how I'd see it too, Fiona. This thread is a reminder to myself to be less sloppy about how I'm doing this out on walks.
This is what happened with Charlie - but he just doesn't look back at me. He does not do this: He does not look to me, he just looks and is calm.
I don't think it matters if the dog doesn't look back at you. If they can sit there and calmly look at 'the thing' then that's great. Probably the ideal, even.
