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

Abstract

Towards the end of their review, Murphy and Arkins (2007) oint out that for horses to successfully adapt to domestic life, hey must learn to suppress instinctive responses and learn alterative behaviour that is acceptable to their trainers and that fits ithin the constraints of the domestic environment. We ask a lot rom a plains living prey species when we bring it into the connes of a stable, ask it suppress it’s flee instincts and instead learn o problem solve the commands of its riders. Yet, as Murphy nd Arkins (2007) acknowledge, despite the high economic and ompanion value humans place on their horses, there is surrisingly low levels of understanding of the learning ability of orses, and there is lamentably scant evidence of knowledge nd application of the principles of learning by their trainers McClean and McGreevy, 2004). Murphy and Arkins (2007) introduce us to Thomas’ (1986) ierarchy of learning ability (Table 1), which provides a frameork for hanging research evidence to support a review of earning abilities in horses. The first three levels of this hierarchy re the basic building blocks of horse training. (1) Habitation to nvironmental stimuli to suppress instinctive flee responses so orses are safe to manage and ride; and sensitisation to cues iven as aids. (2) Classical conditioning of commands to unconitional stimuli to elicit a desired response is an essential part of raining, for example substituting a voice command for a flick f a lunging whip. (3) Simple operant conditioning of desirble responses is usually based upon negative reinforcement, ith positive reinforcement of the desired behavioural response nd punishment of the undesirable from the range of potential esponses made by the horse. The fourth learning ability level, chaining operant responses, orms part of more advanced training where the horse is asked to erform a series of moves before being reinforced. Good trainers