Odour generalisation and detection dog training
Abstract Detection dogs are required to search for and alert to specific odours of interest, such as drugs, cadavers, disease markers and explosives. However, the odour released from different samples of the same target substance will vary for a number of reasons, including the production method, ev...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Animal Cognition |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-024-01907-0 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832585497743982592 |
|---|---|
| author | Lyn Caldicott Thomas W. Pike Helen E. Zulch Daniel S. Mills Fiona J. Williams Kevin R. Elliker Bethany Hutchings Anna Wilkinson |
| author_facet | Lyn Caldicott Thomas W. Pike Helen E. Zulch Daniel S. Mills Fiona J. Williams Kevin R. Elliker Bethany Hutchings Anna Wilkinson |
| author_sort | Lyn Caldicott |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Detection dogs are required to search for and alert to specific odours of interest, such as drugs, cadavers, disease markers and explosives. However, the odour released from different samples of the same target substance will vary for a number of reasons, including the production method, evaporation, degradation, or by being mixed with extraneous odours. Generalisation, the tendency to respond in the same manner to stimuli which are different – but similar to – a conditioned stimulus, is therefore a crucial requirement for working detection dogs. Odour is a complex modality which poses unique challenges in terms of reliably predicting generalisation, when compared with auditory or visual stimuli. The primary aim of this review is to explore recent advances in our understanding of generalisation and the factors that influence it, and to consider these in light of detection dog training methods currently used in the field. We identify potential risks associated with certain training practices, and highlight areas where research is lacking and which warrant further investigation. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-6af8bb48af794e939bbc75b60e33dfb8 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1435-9456 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animal Cognition |
| spelling | doaj-art-6af8bb48af794e939bbc75b60e33dfb82025-01-26T12:43:50ZengSpringerAnimal Cognition1435-94562024-11-0127111410.1007/s10071-024-01907-0Odour generalisation and detection dog trainingLyn Caldicott0Thomas W. Pike1Helen E. Zulch2Daniel S. Mills3Fiona J. Williams4Kevin R. Elliker5Bethany Hutchings6Anna Wilkinson7School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of LincolnSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of LincolnSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of LincolnSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of LincolnDefence Science and Technology LaboratoryDefence Science and Technology LaboratoryDefence Science and Technology LaboratorySchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of LincolnAbstract Detection dogs are required to search for and alert to specific odours of interest, such as drugs, cadavers, disease markers and explosives. However, the odour released from different samples of the same target substance will vary for a number of reasons, including the production method, evaporation, degradation, or by being mixed with extraneous odours. Generalisation, the tendency to respond in the same manner to stimuli which are different – but similar to – a conditioned stimulus, is therefore a crucial requirement for working detection dogs. Odour is a complex modality which poses unique challenges in terms of reliably predicting generalisation, when compared with auditory or visual stimuli. The primary aim of this review is to explore recent advances in our understanding of generalisation and the factors that influence it, and to consider these in light of detection dog training methods currently used in the field. We identify potential risks associated with certain training practices, and highlight areas where research is lacking and which warrant further investigation.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-024-01907-0GeneralisationOlfactionOdour learningDetection dogs |
| spellingShingle | Lyn Caldicott Thomas W. Pike Helen E. Zulch Daniel S. Mills Fiona J. Williams Kevin R. Elliker Bethany Hutchings Anna Wilkinson Odour generalisation and detection dog training Animal Cognition Generalisation Olfaction Odour learning Detection dogs |
| title | Odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| title_full | Odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| title_fullStr | Odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| title_full_unstemmed | Odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| title_short | Odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| title_sort | odour generalisation and detection dog training |
| topic | Generalisation Olfaction Odour learning Detection dogs |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-024-01907-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lyncaldicott odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT thomaswpike odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT helenezulch odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT danielsmills odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT fionajwilliams odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT kevinrelliker odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT bethanyhutchings odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining AT annawilkinson odourgeneralisationanddetectiondogtraining |