↓ Skip to main content

Identifying and Resolving End of Session Cues in Substance Detection Canine Training

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identifying and Resolving End of Session Cues in Substance Detection Canine Training
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Topoleski, Craig A. Schultz, Wynn G. Warren

Abstract

When training and working a substance detection canine, a trained final response should be performed immediately upon recognition of odor (Generally, a 1-3 s window is preferred within our detection practices). Typical canine training places much emphasis on planning and setting up training scenarios to achieve specific objectives but not much consideration is given to how to end a training session. When the canine fails to maintain criteria, trainers are left trying to determine the cause of poor performance. One consideration often overlooked is a phenomenon called End of Session Cueing that may exist in detection training whereby a previously trained canine no longer responds to odor because it has taken on aversive association. This may be due to several factors associated with motivation. The sequence of events at the end of a session can be as equally important to maintain motivation for the task of scent detection in future sessions. This paper will identify and examine multiple factors associated with "End of Session Cues" in working dogs, how they may be responsible for poor final response performance and discuss potential strategies to address them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 20%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,544,609
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#3,124
of 6,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,596
of 336,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#62
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.