Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35793003›Full record

ArticleAnimal cognition2022

The use of an intermittent schedule of reinforcement to evaluate detection dogs' generalization from smokeless-powder.

Edgar O Aviles-Rosa, Lauren S Fernandez, Courtney Collins-Pisano, Paola A Prada-Tiedemann, Nathaniel J Hall

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edgar O Aviles-RosaCanine Olfaction Lab, Animal and Food Sciences Department, Texas Tech University, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX, 79409-214, USA. edgar.aviles-rosa@ttu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9551-771X
Lauren S FernandezCanine Olfaction Lab, Animal and Food Sciences Department, Texas Tech University, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX, 79409-214, USA.
Courtney Collins-PisanoCanine Olfaction Lab, Animal and Food Sciences Department, Texas Tech University, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX, 79409-214, USA.
Paola A Prada-TiedemannForensic Analytical Chemistry and Odor Profiling Laboratory, Department of Environmental Toxicology, Texas Tech University, Box 1163, Lubbock, TX, 79416, USA.
Nathaniel J HallCanine Olfaction Lab, Animal and Food Sciences Department, Texas Tech University, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX, 79409-214, USA.
Texas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Odor generalization is essential for detection dogs. Regardless of its importance, limited research is available on detection dog odor generalization. The objectives of this study were (1) evaluate the use of an intermittent schedule of reinforcement to assess generalization in dogs and (2) evaluate olfactory generalization from a single exemplar of smokeless powder (SP). Dogs (N = 5) were trained to detect SP in an automated olfactometer under an intermittent schedule of reinforcement where only 60% of correct responses were reinforced. After training, eight non-reinforced probe trials were inserted within a session. A total of 15 testing odors were evaluated across 15 consecutive sessions (one odor/session). Six of the testing odors were control and the remaining testing odors were objects indirectly exposed to SP, objects that contained or were directly exposed to SP, single-base SP and diphenylamine (the main volatile present in the headspace of SP). Dogs' response rate to all testing odors except for the cotton gauzes and t-shirt cloths exposed to the headspace of SP, the simulated IED, and Getxent tubes exposed to direct contact with SP were statistically lower than their response rate of actual SP. The response rate to SP was not different across all 15 testing sessions suggesting that the intermittent schedule of reinforcement, maintained dog motivation and performance. Data show that the outlined method is a good approach to study generalization in detection dogs. These results also highlight dog generalization to SP varieties and associated odors.

Indexed as

LobelineWorking DogsAnimalsDogsGeneralization, PsychologicalPowdersReinforcement, PsychologyReinforcement ScheduleLobelinePowdersDetection dogExplosive generalizationOlfactory generalizationReinforcement schedule

Identifiers

PMID35793003
OpenAlexW4283828848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.