دسته: تربیت

  • 6 Ways to Prepare Your Dog for New Year’s Fireworks Starting Now!

    6 Ways to Prepare Your Dog for New Year’s Fireworks Starting Now!


    firecracker exploding in the air with lots of orange sparks

    Is your dog scared of fireworks? Don’t wait until the holiday hits. Even with just a couple days’ lead time, you can make a plan and take action now to help your dog be less afraid of the unpredictable scary sounds of fireworks, firecrackers, whistles, and even guns.

    Get Ready

    Here are some things you can do starting today or tomorrow.

    1. Check into medications. If your dog gets very anxious about noises and you have never talked to your vet about it, do so now. He or she may be able to prescribe something to help. And if you can’t get in before the holiday, do your best with some of the other ideas here to get through it and call your vet as soon as you can. This is a long-term problem. Sound phobias tend to get worse and are not something to be taken lightly.

    2. Countercondition to noises. Get some great treats and start carrying them around. Whenever there is any kind of sudden or startling noise, including stray bangs and booms as people test their noisemakers, rain treats down on your dog. Use those special treats only for noises; don’t pass them out for nice behavior (use something else for that!), and don’t ask for any particular behavior from your dog when the noise occurs. Just give the special treats.

    You may wonder why I am not recommending buying an app, CD, or YouTube video with fireworks sounds to “practice” with. Performing desensitization/counterconditioning with sounds is tricky.  People who haven’t done DS/CC before run a real risk of scaring their dogs further instead of helping them. This is why I am suggesting this method, which uses environmental noises that are happening anyway. It’s called ad hoc counterconditioning and there is evidence from studies that it is effective, including this study that is specific to fireworks. Save the formal training for after the holiday, when you can keep your dog safe from accidental exposures to the sound.

    3. Create a safe place. Make (or adapt) a safe place for your dog. They may even choose their own! Refrain from trying to get them to come out or change locations, as long as it is safe. Keep in mind that the flashes of light that come with big fireworks displays can be scary too, so consider a method to temporarily darken any windows nearby. Also, please know that acoustic foam and even sound blankets don’t do a thing for booms. The big fireworks sounds can’t be “soundproofed” against except with materials that are much too big and heavy to use inside most houses and are not do-it-yourself friendly. Get the best protection you can in a basement or your most internal room. Despite the marketing claims, dog crates with walls a few inches thick can’t dampen low-frequency sounds to an effective degree, either. The walls of your house are probably five to ten inches thick and include insulation, but you can still hear thunder inside your house, right? But if a crate is your dog’s safe place, that’s great. And a blanket over it can muffle echos and create a cozy feeling for humans and perhaps dogs. Here are some examples of safe places for dogs.

    A small black and white terrier sleeping in a "fort" made of pillows

    4. Play sound or music. Experiment with sound masking to find out what is most helpful for your situation. Try some kind of recorded white or brown noise, natural noise, a fan, or music to mask the pops and booms. (Even a noisy food toy can be helpful.) This approach is evidence-based and is called sound masking.

    And here’s a tip: the lower the frequencies included in the masking or music, the better it can hide those low-pitched booms (Kinsler et al., 1999, p.318–320; Gelfand, 2017, p. 187). So if your dogs are already habituated to pounding rock music, metal, or something else with a lot of bass or percussion, play it! And play it on your best sound system to include those low frequencies. It can mask some of the scary noises coming from outside your house more effectively. Before anyone mentions it: that’s right, heavy metal has not ranked well in the dogs and music studies, tending to make shelter dogs more agitated (Kogan et al., 2012). That’s not surprising. But if you play it already and your dogs are fine with it, they may be habituated. In that case, metal could be the very thing for you and your dog.

    Taiko drumming is great if your dogs are accustomed to it. You can buy a few songs and loop them or find some on YouTube. But be absolutely certain that the music itself doesn’t scare your dogs first. If they are already sensitive to booms, it’s a strong possibility.

    Household appliances can help. Most fans hit fairly low frequencies and can be helpful. You can run the dryer (no heat) with a pair of sports shoes in it for some booms that will probably be familiar and not scary. You’ll need to find the line of best fit for your dogs. And you can use several of these at once, again, as long as it doesn’t scare your dog.

    Review studies indicate that music has only mild (or no) positive effects on dogs (Lindig et al., 2020). Also, all studies so far have been done in shelters. clinics, and labs, not in homes, where there are competing activities and reinforcers. Review studies have specifically indicated that there is no benefit to the “music arranged for pets” products. So the evidence supports choosing music for masking qualities, not for any claimed intrinsic relaxing qualities.

    5. Practice going out. Make a plan for taking your dog out to potty. Do you know when the noise is usually at its worst and can you work around that? Are your fences and/or leash and harness secure? If your dog is not used to being on-leash for potty time, start practicing now, including getting the harness on. Dogs who are usually sedate may panic and run off on noisy holidays. Don’t let that happen.  Keep your gates locked, your dogs’ ID tags on, and put some redundancy into your safety system.

    6. Comfort your dog if that helps. LOSE that idea that there’s something wrong with comforting your dog, if that’s what your dog wants. Helping a dog through a tough time is not “coddling.” Assess what is most helpful to your dog: a cuddle, food or a fun game after every scary noise, some lap time, sweet talk, being in their crate with a food toy, or hiding by themselves in a secluded place. Then help them do it. If they want to hide, let them.

    Check out more resources and tips on my page “You Can’t Reinforce Fear.

    Another good resource is this article by Val Hughes: My Dog Fears Fireworks and Thunderstorms—What Should I Do To Help? Her article has suggestions for both long- and short-term solutions.

    References

    Gelfand, S. A. (2017). Hearing: An introduction to psychological and physiological acoustics. CRC Press.

    Kinsler, L. E., Frey, A. R., Coppens, A. B., & Sanders, J. V. (2000). Fundamentals of acoustics. John Wiley & Sons.

    Kogan, L. R., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., & Simon, A. A. (2012). Behavioral effects of auditory stimulation on kenneled dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior7(5), 268-275.

    Lindig, A. M., McGreevy, P. D., & Crean, A. J. (2020). Musical dogs: A review of the influence of auditory enrichment on canine health and behavior. Animals10(1), 127.

    Riemer, S. (2020). Effectiveness of treatments for firework fears in dogs. Journal of veterinary behavior37, 61-70.

    © Eileen Anderson 2015 



    Source link

  • My Sound Decisions Webinar Is Available Again!

    My Sound Decisions Webinar Is Available Again!


    The back of a dog's head. Her ears are extended to the sides. he is black with rut-colored ears.

    In July 2019, I gave a live webinar on dogs and sound to a sold-out crowd through Linda Case’s The Science Dog. In June 2024, I presented an updated version, translated live to the German training organization IBH. Practicing the updated presentation gave me the opportunity to record it for future audiences.

    I am pleased to announce that my recorded webinar Sound Decisions: Helping Your Dog Cope with a Noisy Human World is again available for purchase.

    Not only that, but I have reduced the price for my other sound webinar: Listen Up: An Evidence-Based Assessment of Sound Products for Dogs. And I’ve created a “bundle” where you can buy them both for a further discount.

    I really want this information to get to trainers and the public, so the prices are super low.


    About the Webinars

    A small black and rust colored dog

    This subject matter is mostly unknown in the dog training community. Misinformation abounds.

    There are so many aspects of the physics of sound we need to know about for successful dog training and management. Trainers need to understand basics about sound science to perform desensitization and counterconditioning effectively with client dogs. They need to be informed about the science of sound to help with management solutions. They need to be able to identify bogus products and claims.

    Trainers and pet owners alike often search for methods to protect their dogs from bothersome sounds. Many of the solutions commonly offered for these problems are not supported by evidence.

    We need to approach sound with the same scientific rigor that we do behavior science. I’m uniquely qualified on the subject. I have a master’s degree in music from the San Francisco Conservatory of Music and a master’s degree in applied science (acoustics) from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. My research and thesis were on active noise control.

    You can read the descriptions of the two webinars on my store site, but in short:

    • Sound Decisions focuses on the ways we can help our dogs who are sensitive to sound. It’s about 60 minutes long.
    • Listen Up focuses on products including ultrasonic toys, ultrasonic punishment devices, music for relaxation, barriers to sound such as earmuff-type products, and more. It includes demos of what really comes out of some of the ultrasonic toys and aversive devices. It’s about 90 minutes long.

    Both cover a lot of ground!

    Both webinars have guaranteed access for at least a year your enrollment date, and probably much longer.

    If You Purchased “Listen Up” from Me Previously

    Listen Up formerly sold for $30, which is more than the new price of the bundle of two webinars. If you purchased Listen Up from me, I’m happy to provide a code for free access to Sound Decisions. Contact me here on my blog or on Facebook Messenger through my personal Facebook account. I’ll need the email address you used when you purchased Listen Up to verify your previous order.

    Copyright 2024 Eileen Anderson



    Source link

  • I Found Ultrasound in My (Dog’s) Home

    I Found Ultrasound in My (Dog’s) Home


    A scientific diagram on a black background with time on the x axis and frequency on the y axis. The frequency range extends to 70,000 Hz. Colors indicate the amplitude of the sound, described further in the caption.
    Four speeds, from slow to fast, of an Andis rotary tool for nail grinding

    People in the dog community are worried that sounds we can’t hear might be bothering our dogs. But we can’t check for ultrasound with consumer equipment, even smartphones, because consumer microphones don’t detect sound above 20,000 cycles per second (20,000 Hz). They have no reason to, since we can’t hear in that range. But dogs can. They hear up to 45,000 Hz or higher.

    My Search for Ultrasound

    In 2023, I bought an ultrasound microphone and learned how to interface it with my equipment. In January 2024, I published a post with instructions on how to check your home and environment for ultrasound that your dogs might be able to hear. I found that many ordinary noises had an ultrasound component—things like clickers, keyboard strokes, motors, even barking dogs. But I was looking for duration or intermittent ultrasound that might be generated by electronic devices and didn’t have a component audible to humans.

    I didn’t find any for a while, but I kept searching. You can see my list of items that didn’t emit detectable ultrasound below.

    I recently checked the sound environment again, and found some constant, low-level, electronics-generated ultrasound in dogs’ hearing range that was not accompanied with anything in the human hearing range.

    Three power adapters at the end of cords. Two are much bigger than standard wall plugs
    The culprits: three adapters that put out ultrasound, but no sound audible to humans

    I found what people have been worried about: sound that dogs can hear but we can’t. But the sound was very quiet; it would likely be inaudible unless a dog was very close.

    This ultrasonic noise was emanating from ordinary AC/DC adapters. I have at least 20 of these in my house. I found three that put out a high-frequency noise that was outside of humans’ hearing range. These were the adapters for:

    • A floor lamp with a 24 V DC power supply. It put out a group of frequencies peaking around 21,000, 31,000, and 43,000 Hz.
    • A decorative “Moon” lamp with a 12 V DC power supply. It put out a group of frequencies peaking around 23,000, 28,000, and 33,000 Hz. This adapter even put out a little sound when the lamp was off, but more when it was on.
    • A Fi GPS collar charger that output 5 V DC. The USB adapter put out a band of frequencies peaking around 22,000, 30,000, and 45,000 Hz.

    Note that it was the adapters, not the lights or the charger putting out the sound. I spent a lot of time pointing my microphone at the wrong ends of things!

    The following image shows the ultrasound put out by the adapter of the floor lamp. The x axis is time and the y axis is frequency. You can see blue and green bands in the 20–70 kHz range that correspond to the peaks I listed above during the periods the lamp is on. Also note that there is no change in the sound output lower than 20 kHz when the lamp is on. That means that we humans can’t hear the adapter. (The thin vertical lines were created by the click of the remote for turning the lamp on and off.) For more information on reading this kind of diagram, see the page of examples that accompanies this post.

    A scientific diagram on a black background with time on the x axis and frequency on the y axis. The frequency range extends to 70,000 Hz. 
The diagram shows time periods where a lamp is on, then off, then on again. The findings are described in the text above the image.

    I found one more item that had a constant, quiet, high-frequency sound in the human hearing range plus sounds in the ultrasound range. These sounds were coming from a battery charger for a Dremel tool (8220). It put out an audible tone at 6,000 Hz, and harmonics (mathematically related higher tones) at 12,000, 18,000, and 24,000 Hz. The charger itself (the part where you insert the battery, in this case not the wall plug) has a built-in AC/DC adapter.

    AC/DC Adapters

    AC/DC adapters function as power supplies for devices that use direct current and lower voltage than what our wall outlets provide. They are the things that often annoy us by taking up more than one space on a power strip. They are often referred to as wall warts because of their bulk. That makes them easy to locate in your home. Two of my culprits were wall warts, and one had a profile almost as small as a normal AC plug.

    What Do They Sound Like and How Audible Are They to Dogs?

    Here are recordings of the sounds, digitally altered to make them audible to humans. There is some unavoidable distortion, but you can get the general idea. To create these sounds, I did the following:

    1. I recorded the sound in WAV format using my Dodotronic 192 kHz ultrasound mic attached to my iPhone 12 Mini using the free Ultrasonic Analyzer app.
    2. I imported the audio file into the free sound software Audacity on my Mac.
    3. I applied a high-pass filter to isolate the ultrasound.
    4. I amplified the signal. The sound was so quiet that I needed to amplify it to be able to see on the screen where the device was on and where it was off so I could edit. See this image.
    5. I changed the pitch to bring it down to human hearing range.
    6. Sometimes I amplified again.
    7. I exported the file as an MP3. The limitations of MP3s don’t affect the sound quality needed for these recordings.

    Floor Lamp


    “Moon” Lamp


    Fi Collar Charger Plug


    A table lamp on a wooden that looks like the moon. The lamp stand is a circular wooden disk.
    The moon lamp’s power adapter puts out extremely quiet ultrasound even when the lamp is off

    All the original sounds have ultrasound components in dogs’ hearing range, between 20,000 and 45,000 Hz. But the adapted versions are amplified in the above recordings; in all cases, the original sounds were much, much quieter.

    For those of us who are concerned about them possibly bothering dogs, there is a blessing. Ultrasound waves are tiny. For instance, the wave that corresponds to the frequency of 25,000 Hz is 14 millimeters, or a little more than half an inch long. For comparison, a 60 Hz wave such as we could hear in a thunderstorm is 5.7 meters or almost 19 feet long. The tiny ultrasound waves don’t travel far over distances because they are reflected and absorbed so easily. It’s a good bet that even dogs don’t hear sounds such as the ones I presented above unless they are close to the source. The sounds are not blasting through whole rooms.

    The two lamps are within about 2 meters of where Lewis sleeps on my bed. While recording, I moved the ultrasound mic from the lamp’s power adapter toward where Lewis sleeps. The mic stopped being able to pick up the sound at about 1 meter. You can see the attenuation of the sound as I moved the mic in this image.

    Items I Tested with Null Results

    Various scholarly and lay articles include lists of household devices that may put out ultrasound. I chose the following devices from those sources, tested, and detected no ultrasound. Other brands or models of these items might yield different results. Note that some of these items have been reported to scare dogs (Grigg et al., 2021). But noises do not have to have an ultrasound component to do so, and we don’t know if the ultrasound component contributed to the fear response.

    • new and old lights: fluorescent, incandescent, LED including ring lights, night lights (which include adapters)
    • screens: desktop computer, tablets, laptops, flat-screen TV
    • motion-sensitive wildlife camera (Meek et al., 2014)
    • laptop fan
    • computer power adapters (I was sure I’d find a culprit here, but no. The Apple devices were all silent.)
    • power strips
    • USB wall plugs (these are also AC/DC adapters). The only noisy one was the Fi collar plug.
    • smart plugs (two brands)
    • refrigerator, microwave, oven
    • smoke alarms on standby (not beeping)
    • remote controls (except for occasionally the click of a key)
    • ultrasonic humidifier
    • space heater
    • various fans

    A Special Note about Smart Plugs

    Two smart plugs sitting on a marble-top counter

    Because of a viral social media post from November 2023, many people are concerned about the possibility of so-called “smart plugs” putting out ultrasound. While it is possible, neither of the two I tested put out any. I deliberately chose cheap ones, because they are less likely to have strong quality control. An engineer pointed out to me that standard QC includes making sure electronics don’t put out noises such as coil whine or capacitor squeal in the human hearing range. But there is far less concern about the ultrasound range, for the same usual reason. We can’t hear it.

    Note that smart plugs are not AC adapters. You might plug an adapter into one, though. Many smart plugs note 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz on the back. Don’t worry; these numbers refer to compatible Wi-Fi types and are not audible sound frequencies to humans or dogs.

    Items That Produce Sound That Includes Ultrasound

    These are not the stealth items that people are worried about, but I was fascinated to find so many noisy items that included ultrasonic frequencies. I created a page of ultrasound examples that includes images of the output of some of these loud items.

    A woman using a rotary hammer drill, drilling straight down into a brick step. The drill is large, with two handles.
    I had on a mask and a face guard, but ear protection would have been a good idea when using a rotary hammer drill as well!
    • computer keyboard strokes
    • clicker
    • ultrasonic squeaker toy
    • regular squeaker toy (you can see an image of the ultrasound components of noise from the preceding four items here)
    • barks and whines of a small dog (Sibiryakova et al., 2021)
    • clicks of various switches (like on remotes to fans or lamps)
    • smoke alarms doing a test beep
    • computer mouse clicks
    • hands clapping
    • jingling keys
    • hand-held hair dryer
    • jingling dog tags
    • upright vacuum
    • small rotary tools (e.g. Dremel)
    • Makita screwdriver and drill
    • Makita rotary hammer drill

    For some of these items, the ultrasound component was among the loudest of the frequency bands. Because dogs’ hearing is more sensitive in the upper frequencies than ours, if a dog were close to such an item, they would likely hear a louder sound than we do. Most apps that measure volume, such as SPL meters for smartphones, don’t include the ultrasound range.

    People frequently ask me about using ear-muff type ear protection for dogs who are fearful of thunder or fireworks. I always explain that such gear can’t protect against the huge sound waves generated by those low-frequency sounds. But these ear protectors can usually prevent the transmission of smaller sound waves very well. If your dog has been conditioned to wear ear gear, it would be a kindness to have them wear it as much as possible for grooming. The hair dryer and rotary tools I checked were loud in the ultrasound range, on top of being loud in high frequencies humans and dogs can both hear. Clippers may also put out ultrasound, but I didn’t have any to test.

    “Ultrasound” Is an Arbitrary Definition

    It’s crucial to understand that sound doesn’t magically change when the frequency goes over 20,000 Hz. That boundary of 20,000 Hz for ultrasound is derived from “sound that is too high for humans to hear.” It’s a handy distinction, but it’s based on biology, not physics. It’s anthropocentric. Ultrasound is just sound with a higher frequency. I always make the point in my sound webinars that we shouldn’t assume that a sound is aversive to dogs if it is in the ultrasound range, even though there are some oddball online articles that claim this is so. Keep in mind that dogs’ hearing evolved to function in that range. Many small animals that are prey to canids vocalize in that range. It’s no coincidence that domestic cats can hear in that range and even higher, too.

    Anything happening above 20,000 Hz is a mystery to us. But it’s not to dogs; it’s just part of their world. It is quite possible that a constant noise in the ultrasound range could bother some dogs. It’s also likely that many dogs habituate to it, just as many dogs (and many humans) stop noticing other ongoing stimuli. For instance, the furnace is on in my house as I write this. There is the sound of the fan blowing air through the ductwork and perhaps the sound of the furnace itself coming through the registers. But I don’t “hear” these long duration sounds unless I turn my attention to them. Likewise, most of us who live in cities don’t notice the common 60-Hz hum of transformers. But people who live in rural areas may notice it when they come to town. And some people are immediately bothered by some ongoing sounds or never habituate.

    I have an example in another post of dogs hanging around during a very obnoxious ongoing sound, even deliberately basking in the sun close to the sound source. This example “proves” nothing about how all dogs respond to sounds. However, it provides evidence that we may not be able to predict their response.

    Limitations of My Testing

    In the interest of transparency, I have created a separate page that delineates aspects of my home setup that affect the precision and accuracy of my data, in this and other posts that present results. I do not have controlled laboratory conditions. But I include in the list how the limitations were mitigated and why I can be confident in the results I have presented here.

    Conclusion

    Two major takeaways:

    • The “stealth” sounds I found are likely inaudible unless a dog approaches close. Here is a photo of sound-reactive Lewis standing right next to the adapter for the floor lamp while he determines whether I have “webinar or Zoom treats” in a drawer.
    • The ultrasound generated by motors can be loud. Properly conditioned hearing protection would be beneficial for dogs undergoing grooming procedures where a hair dryer or rotary tool is used.

    Others have found more stealth ultrasound than I have, as described in this dramatically-titled CNET article. However, the author doesn’t discuss the rapid attenuation over distance of ultrasound, nor do they give us a good sense of how loud the sounds are.

    I will keep performing periodic sweeps for ultrasound culprits in my area and report any findings.

    Supplemental Materials

    There are two pages with information relevant to this post:

    Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

    References

    Grigg, E. K., Chou, J., Parker, E., Gatesy-Davis, A., Clarkson, S. T., & Hart, L. A. (2021). Stress-related behaviors in companion dogs exposed to common household noises, and owners’ interpretations of their dogs’ behaviors. Frontiers in veterinary science8, 760845.

    Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. A., Fleming, P. J., Schaefer, M., Williams, W., & Falzon, G. (2014). Camera traps can be heard and seen by animals. PloS one9(10), e110832.

    Sibiryakova, O. V., Volodin, I. A., & Volodina, E. V. (2021). Polyphony of domestic dog whines and vocal cues to body size. Current Zoology67(2), 165-176.



    Source link

  • Review of Pet Shell’s Report: Your Dog Will Hear Fireworks and Thunder Inside

    Review of Pet Shell’s Report: Your Dog Will Hear Fireworks and Thunder Inside


    If your dog is afraid of noises, please take that seriously. Sound reactivity can be debilitating, and the clinical, medical condition of sound phobia can be devastating. Neither is commonly “solved” by purchasing a product. Evidence supports the use of counterconditioning, relaxation training, and behavioral medications (Riemer, 2020).


    The Pet Shell Pet House

    I do not own a Pet Shell. I am reviewing the claims of their marketing materials compared to the acoustic report they published.

    A new product for dogs and cats, the “Pet Shell,” has hit the market. It is a Kickstarter project and promoted as a noise-reducing pet house that “reduces sounds by more than 50%,” which is a problematic statement. The marketing materials further imply that the interior of the Pet Shell is “silent,” with multiple statements such as, “The unbeatable combination of darkness and silence (emphasis theirs) creates a calming space for your pet, similar to a den.” The silence claim is also problematic, and untrue per their own test results.

    The noises they feature in a promotional video are a thunderclap, a siren, a jackhammer, a vacuum, traffic, a beeping alarm clock, and fireworks. Similarly, the sounds listed on the “Understanding Dogs’ Sensitivity” section of their Kickstarter site are thunderstorms, fireworks and gunshots, loud vehicles, sirens and alarms, construction and industrial noises, and household noises. Note how many of these include low-frequency sounds.

    This product is being aggressively marketed as a solution for dogs who fear thunder and fireworks. However, Pet Shell’s own published acoustical testing report, impeccably performed at the Slovenian National Building and Civil Engineering Institute, reveals that the low frequencies of thunder and fireworks are where the Pet Shell is least effective at preventing the transmission of sound.

    This is in keeping with the findings of basic physics and acoustics.

    The Acoustic Testing and Report

    The acoustic testing of the Pet shell was performed by a physicist with excellent credentials. The report is exemplary, with methods explained well and with sufficient detail and transparency that someone with the right equipment could replicate the testing. I am glad that Pet Shell engaged an expert who knows testing procedures and the applicable standards to do this work.

    The results are well supported in the report itself, and they are in keeping with general knowledge about sound entering enclosures. I will assume the accuracy of the report findings through this blog post.

    The Problematic Marketing Claims

    The marketing materials contain many statements and claims that are refuted by Pet Shell’s own test results. Here are the highlights.

    1. Problematic Claim: The Pet Shell reduces sounds by more than 50%. The average sound reduction across the frequency bands over a range of 1–20,000 Hz was found to be 13 decibels. Since a 10-decibel reduction correlates with a decrease of the perceived sound by half (for humans), this “more than 50%” reduction can be defended. However, that average gives an incomplete picture of what is happening inside the Pet Shell. The effectiveness of sound reduction by passive means (barriers, absorption) depends on frequency. It is much easier to prevent the transmission of high-frequency sound. If you check the breakdown by frequency on the sound testing report, you see that the low frequencies from 100 to 250 Hz show much less reduction in the Pet Shell. The attenuation is 2.6 dB at 100 Hz, 4.2 dB at 125 Hz, 6.6 dB at 160 Hz, 5.3 dB at 200 Hz, and 3.4 dB at 250 Hz. These frequencies correlate with the frequencies of thunder and large fireworks, and they are being reduced much less than the average.

      Please view the report to see this dramatic decline in effectiveness at low frequencies depicted graphically on page 4.

      This poor performance is not at all surprising; it’s common to all barrier-based solutions. You can see a similar lowered effectiveness in the sound spectrum report for Rex Specs Ear Pro, ear protection for dogs. Passive sound barriers are not effective at preventing the transmission of low frequencies; the waves are too massive.

      The Pet Shell can claim a 13-decibel reduction overall because the sound attenuation is much more effective at higher frequencies. But think what that means. An animal in the interior of the Pet Shell is in a soundscape with a predominance of low frequencies.

    2. Extremely Problematic Claim: “Silence.” The repeated references to silence can’t be defended. On page 4 of the report, they list the actual sound reduction of the Pet Shell in the presence of the noise source. The test noise clocks in at 94.2 dB(A) outside the Pet Shell and 81.0 dB(A) inside the Pet Shell. (See technical addendum for notes about dB(A).) Some examples of noises in that decibel range are a gas-powered lawnmower, a busy freeway at 50 feet, a loud overhead pager (intercom), an electric lawn edger, and the noise inside an airplane. Eighty-five dB is the boundary in U.S. workplaces where exposure over time must be monitored and controlled. Referring to the noise reduction inside the Pet Shell as achieving “silence” is preposterous.
    3. Problematic Claim: “…minimizing intense sounds – especially high-pitched ones that trigger stress…” This statement correctly identifies that the Pet Shell is more effective at decreasing higher-frequency sounds than lower-frequency sounds, as is true of any passive sound barrier. But why are they focusing on “high-pitched sounds that trigger stress” when most of the sounds they list on their sites and include in their promotional video are low frequency? Fireworks and thunder are featured over and over. Of the sounds I listed from their materials above, only the siren, the alarm clock, and some household noises stand out as higher frequency. And while there are plenty of dogs who fear high-frequency sounds (I had one), a recent study showed that thunder was the most common fear (Grigg et al., 2021, p. 4).
    4. Problematic Claim: The usual buzzwords for such products like “calming, safe, silent, secure,” and implications of relaxation and decreasing anxiety. I’m sure some animals enjoy the privacy, the ability to hide in a cozy place, and the moderate sound reduction at higher frequencies. But dogs inside the Pet Shell will still hear the fireworks and thunderstorms perfectly well.
    Text: During testing with loud (94 dB) white noise, the sound level was 81.0 dB inside the Pet Shell.  Some examples of noises in that decibel range are a busy freeway from 50 feet away, a loud overhead pager (intercom), an electric lawn edger, a gas-powered lawnmower, and the noise inside an airplane.

    Images Depicting Fireworks and Thunder Sounds by Frequency

    The following images show that the weakest performance of the Pet Shell (per their report) correlates with the loudest frequencies of fireworks and thunder.

    I analyzed sound recordings of fireworks and thunder in the software Audacity, and the images below show the sound spectrum, in other words, how loud the sound is at different frequencies. In the images, the horizontal (x) axis is frequency, and the vertical (y) axis is decibels. The higher something is on the y axis, the louder it is. I marked with a black rectangle the frequency area where the Pet Shell is least effective per the numbers in their report: the range from100 to 250 Hz. It correlates with the loudest frequencies of both the fireworks and thunder.

    Fireworks
    Thunder

    The red line in each image shows the peak, the area of maximum amplitude (roughly, volume). In both cases, it is within the area where the Pet Shell performs the worst.

    See my technical addendum at the bottom if you are curious why the decibels on the y axis are negative.

    I purchased the sample sounds of fireworks and thunderclaps from Pond5.com. You can listen to lower-quality previews (turn down your volume first!) of the sounds I used here (fireworks) and here (thunder). I chose recordings by ear that had plenty of low frequencies. Here are sources for information about the typical low frequencies of fireworks (Tanaka et al., 2016) and thunder (Holmes et al., 1971).

    Can a Little Reduction Help My Dog?

    Are you thinking, “Well, even a tiny bit of reduction in the sound of thunder is probably worth it”? If so, ask yourself whether your dog reacts only to the loudest thunderclaps. When they hear thunder that doesn’t shake the house, are they fine? In that case, maybe a little reduction could help (although they’ll still feel the house shake inside the Pet Shell). Or have they generalized to fearing most or all thunder noise? In that case, a small reduction in decibels is immaterial. Dogs often get sensitized to sounds that scare them. When this happens, the sound can scare them at lower intensities than it did originally. In these cases, a small reduction in the sound intensity would not make a difference.

    A small, black and rust hound mix showing the body language of extreme fear: Tucked tail, roached back, ears back, front paw lifted, distress in her face
    A “before” photo of clinically sound phobic Zani, who didn’t need a hiding place from sounds for her last five years because we consulted a veterinary behaviorist

    Conclusion

    The Pet Shell is expensive and doesn’t cure sound fear. It doesn’t block low-frequency sound. It’s not silent inside. Providing a hiding place is a kindness, but don’t we want more than that for our dogs—to address the fear itself?

    The harm of the Pet Shell comes from the marketing claims, including that it can protect dogs significantly from thunder and fireworks. Their own report says that it can’t. People may purchase this product instead of pursuing evidence-based approaches to help their pet’s sound sensitivity.

    I had an exchange with a representative of Pet Shell on social media after I made a brief critique. They were polite and open to suggestions. I asked them to put a notice on their website about how serious the fear of sounds can be in dogs, and to encourage people to seek professional help for their dogs for this problem.

    References

    • Grigg, E. K., Chou, J., Parker, E., Gatesy-Davis, A., Clarkson, S. T., & Hart, L. A. (2021). Stress-related behaviors in companion dogs exposed to common household noises, and owners’ interpretations of their dogs’ behaviors. Frontiers in veterinary science8, 760845.
    • Holmes, C. R., Brook, M., Krehbiel, P., & McCrory, R. (1971). On the power spectrum and mechanism of thunder. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76(9), 2106-2115.
    • Riemer, S. (2020). Effectiveness of treatments for firework fears in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior37, 61-70.
    • Tanaka, T., Inaba, R., & Aoyama, A. (2016). Noise and low-frequency sound levels due to aerial fireworks and prediction of the occupational exposure of pyrotechnicians to noise. Journal of occupational health58(6), 593-601.

    Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

    Photos

    Photo of dog with chin on the floor courtesy of user PicsbyFran on Pixabay. I cropped it. All other photos copyright Eileen Anderson 2025.

    Technical Addendum: Those Negative Decibels and dB(A)

    The decibels are negative in my images because they are being measured inside a computer and not the real world. Decibels need a reference point, and there are lots of different ones used. The maximum decibels that the computer can record (so-called “full-scale”) is set at a reference point of zero. So the closer the negative number is to zero, and the higher it is physically on the image, the louder the sound is at that frequency.

    The designation dB(A) in the Pet Shell report refers to a decibel scale that is weighted, taking into account the characteristics of human hearing. This can introduce error, but it’s unavoidable at this time. We don’t have a scale weighted for dogs (which is acknowledged in the report).



    Source link

  • Evidence Suggests Dogs Prefer Free Food to Contrafreeloading

    Evidence Suggests Dogs Prefer Free Food to Contrafreeloading


    A hound dog mix looks quizzically at the camera while sitting with her front feet in a snuffle mat, a food enrichment toy

    There is no experimental evidence to support the claim that dogs prefer to work for their food. In fact, there is evidence that they don’t.

    Contrafreeloading is the behavior shown when an animal prefers to work for food (“earned food”) rather than take identical food that is freely available from another, nearby source (“free food”). — Inglis, 2022

    A recent study found that statistically, the group of dogs they tested did not prefer contrafreeloading. They were willing to do it. I’ll discuss the results of the study below, including their definitions of “prefer” and “willing.”

    But it’s just as important to learn about contrafreeloading findings in general. Studies on contrafreeloading have been done with many species. The studies have had large variability in results (Lentz & Cohen, 1980). Contrafreeloading is far from a universal preference; it appears more to be situational. And the many studies have yielded patterns that can inform us of situations in which this interesting phenomenon is more or less likely to happen.

    A maned wolf, which resembles a large, tall fox, walks on grass
    Maned wolves have been observed to contrafreeload

    Highlights of the Research

    The seminal Jensen study (1963) is often cited to support contrafreeloading generally, including in dogs. In that study, rats preferred to press a bar to get food rather than eat it out of a dish. What many people miss are the full results of the study and the experimental follow-ups. Jensen’s rats contrafreeloaded in proportion to their reinforcement history with bar pressing—they worked for food more when they had built a habit. In 1972, Taylor performed an experiment similar to Jensen’s, but the rats in his study showed a strong preference for the free food, and an even stronger preference for free water. Taylor had more preference tests after the initial bar pressing training (Jensen had only one preference test), and contrafreeloading decreased over those sessions as time passed from the initial training. Lentz and Cohen (1980) worked with pigeons to investigate whether previous training with the contrafreeloading method of obtaining food had an effect. They also found that response rates in the presence of free food increased as a function of previous training.

    “The data suggest that amount of training affects contrafreeloading and that this variable may be partly responsible for the large variability in responding observed among studies examining responding in the presence of free food.” — Lentz & Cohen, 1980, p. 48

    The research continued, and scientists discovered many other factors that could influence whether animals chose to contrafreeload. A review paper in 1997 (Inglis et al.) compiled from previous studies seven items that could increase or decrease contrafreeloading . They used them to create a fuzzy logic model of contrafreeloading. Here are the seven items they considered. Supporting references for each of these are in the Inglis paper.

    • Prior training. A reinforcement history with the method of accessing the food increases contrafreeloading.
    • Deprivation level. This has both increased and decreased contrafreeloading in studies, depending on other variables.
    • Effort required. The larger the effort needed to access the food, the less likely animals are to contrafreeload.
    • Stimulus change. A change in the environment that correlates with the presentation of the earned food increases contrafreeloading. This might be a light or a sound. (Hmm, clicker training, anyone?)
    • Environmental uncertainty. Novelty, ambiguity, and surprisingness increase contrafreeloading. For instance, animals are more likely to contrafreeload if that food source appears at an unpredictable location.
    • Rearing conditions. Being reared under conditions of sensory deprivation increases contrafreeloading.
    • Manipulation of the environment. Being able to control the environment may be a factor that increases contrafreeloading.
    A red junglefowl, which looks like a domestic rooster, walks among lush greenery
    Red junglefowl, the primary precursor species to the domestic chicken, contrafreeload more than chickens (Lindqvist et al, 2002)

    The list above comprises factors that can affect whether animals contrafreeload in different situations. But they do not explain why. One well-supported hypothesis is that the food itself is not the only reinforcer for food seeking behavior and eating. This “information hypothesis” notes that animals gain information about their environment when they contrafreeload. Such information could be helpful when seeking food in the future. This hypothesis has been borne out in studies.

    An earlier review (Osborne, 1977) looked at contrafreeloading experiments through a behavior analysis lens and analyzed the reinforcement schedules identified in the studies. Osborne was apparently the first to note the effects of “stimulus change,” one factor listed above. After reviewing the research up to that point, Osborne states, ” . . . when the consequences of responding for food or obtaining it freely are made equally reinforcing (e.g., by equating stimulus change conditions for both alternatives), animals show a near exclusive preference for obtaining their food freely.”

    Scientists have noted one other trend that supports the information hypothesis: domestic species tend to contrafreeload less. This is thought to be because their needs are taken care of by humans, and they don’t have a pressing need to seek information as wild animals do.

    The Dog Study

    The study of contrafreeloading in dogs (Rothkoff et al., 2024) is freely available online and very readable. Since the results were that dogs were “willing” to contrafreeload but didn’t “prefer” it, it’s important to learn how the scientists defined these terms.

    Here’s how the experiment was set up. There were four “acclimation” sessions where the dogs gained experience with eating from a snuffle mat and became familiar with a setup of a snuffle mat and a tray of “free” food. After the acclimation sessions, there were 10 experimental sessions. In these sessions, half of the dogs’ meal was in the snuffle mat, and half in the tray of food. All acclimation and experimental sessions were video recorded.

    A preference for contrafreeloading was determined by measuring how often the dog went to the snuffle mat first. A willingness to contrafreeload was determined by measuring how often the dog approached and interacted with the snuffle mat before finishing the food in the tray.

    Results under these definitions were:

    Preference. Only one of 38 dogs preferred to contrafreeload, going first to the snuffle mat 80% of the time. Twenty-two dogs went first to the tray for a large majority of the time, and fifteen dogs did not show a strong preference.

    Willingness. Thirty of 38 dogs were “willing” to contrafreeload. Eight were not willing.

    We can consider the characteristics of snuffle mats in view of Inglis et al.’s seven factors affecting contrafreeloading. Compared to many food-based enrichment toys for dogs, snuffle mats are low effort. They do not require the skill of puzzle feeders or frozen Kongs. I find it interesting that even with a comparatively easy “earned food” opportunity, most dogs preferred the free food. But mats also lack a stimulus change—there is no bell or click when the dog grabs a piece of food from the mat. That absence could make contrafreeloading less reinforcing.

    There are two other interesting findings in the study: dogs’ activity level did not correlate with a preference for free food or contrafreeloading, but dogs with higher body condition scores (more overweight) were more likely to contrafreeload.

    Finally, there is a thoughtful listing of the limitations of the study at the end of the writeup.

    Enrichment

    Where does this leave us with enrichment? In dozens of online articles on enrichment for dogs, you will see contrafreeloading referenced. You will see such absolute and non-evidence-based statements as:

    • Dogs have a behavioral drive to earn their keep
    • All dogs are contrafreeloaders
    • Dogs will work for their food while passing up the same food for free
    • Dogs would rather work for their food than not

    The message is sometimes more nuanced, especially in the last couple of years. But you can still find plenty of articles that present contrafreeloading as an unquestioned attribute of dogs. Moreover, contrafreeloading is presented as a justification for enrichment activities that involve dogs working for food.

    A human holds a pole with a rope attached to one end. A tan dog is stretched out chasing a toy tied to the end of the rope.
    There are many enriching activities that don’t involve food toys

    How this information about dogs and contrafreeloading might affect our enrichment choices is beyond the scope of this post. But here are some resources.

    I have written about assessing whether a dog really enjoys a food toy, rather than assuming they do because they are “supposed to.”

    Linda Case at The Science Dog has a comprehensive blog post about studies that assess whether food toys have beneficial qualities for dogs.

    And here are three studies that might inform our choices about enrichment. The Breakfast Effect study (Miller & Bender, 2012) showed evidence that dogs, just like people, probably learn better when their stomachs are not empty. The Eureka Effect study (McGowan et al., 2014) provided evidence that solving problems can make dogs feel good. Finally, a fascinating paper in 2024 (Veissier et al.) suggested that opportunities for animals to gain information should be central to designing enrichment activities. This paper has a wealth of information that can help us think about enrichment in new ways.

    A Personal Note

    I use food toys. This study and the rest of the contrafreeloading research do not discourage me from offering them in moderation. Here are some things I do and don’t do with food toys.

    • I do use food toys with dogs with cognitive dysfunction (easy ones).
    • I do look for toys and activities where the dog’s enthusiasm seems much greater than the value of the food involved, as in searching games.
    • I do use food toys with easy-to-access, high-value food for delay counterconditioning or just to sweeten difficult situations.
    • I do help my dogs with those last stubborn pieces at the end if they ask me to.
    • I don’t give a dog a challenging food toy on an empty stomach, nor do I train in that situation.
    • I don’t ask a dog to work for food when they are sick or have a low appetite.
    • I don’t ask a dog to work for food in a way that stresses them out. For instance, treat scatters can stress some intense resource guarders. Similarly, I don’t do food chase games with dogs who gulp it frantically.
    • I don’t ask a dog to interact with a toy they find un-fun. Lewis has told me he finds Kongs, especially frozen ones, pretty “meh.” I give him Westpaw toys instead.

    The research with dogs is only one study, with identified limitations. More research needs to be done. But with the power of the rest of the research behind it, the study is compelling. Scientists have been studying the “when” and the “why” of contrafreeloading for decades. It’s time for us to consider those findings in the dog training world.

    Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

    Related Posts

    References

    • Inglis, I. R., Forkman, B., & Lazarus, J. (1997). Free food or earned food? A review and fuzzy model of contrafreeloading. Animal behaviour53(6), 1171-1191.
    • Inglis, I. R. (2022). Contrafreeloading. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior (pp. 1665-1670). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
    • Jensen, G. D. (1963). Preference for bar pressing over “freeloading” as a function of number of rewarded presses. Journal of Experimental Psychology65(5), 451.
    • Lentz, B. E., & Cohen, S. L. (1980). The effect of prior training on the contrafreeloading phenomenon. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society15(1), 48-50.
    • Lindqvist, C., Schütz, K., & Jensen, P. (2002). Red jungle fowl have more contrafreeloading than white leghorn layers: Effect of food deprivation and consequences for information gain. Behaviour139(9), 1195-1209.
    • McGowan, R. T., Rehn, T., Norling, Y., & Keeling, L. J. (2014). Positive affect and learning: exploring the “Eureka Effect” in dogs. Animal cognition17, 577-587.
    • Miller, H. C., & Bender, C. (2012). The breakfast effect: Dogs (Canis familiaris) search more accurately when they are less hungry. Behavioural processes91(3), 313-317.
    • Osborne, S. R. (1977). The free food (contrafreeloading) phenomenon: A review and analysis. Animal Learning & Behavior5(3), 221-235.
    • Rothkoff, L., Feng, L., & Byosiere, S. E. (2024). Domestic pet dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) do not show a preference to contrafreeload, but are willing. Scientific Reports14(1), 1314.
    • Taylor, G. T. (1972). A limitation of the contrafreeloading phenomenon. Psychonomic Science29(3), 173-174.
    • Veissier, I., Lesimple, C., Brunet, V., Aubé, L., & Botreau, R. (2024). Rethinking environmental enrichment as providing opportunities to acquire information. animal, 101251.

    Copyright 2025 Eileen Anderson

    Image Credits

    • Maned wolf from Wikimedia Commons, user Jonathan Wilkins , under this license.
    • Red junglefowl from Wikimedia Commons, user Charles J. Sharp , under this license. Modification: I cropped the photo.
    • Images of Zani on the snuffle mat and Clara playing with the flirt pole copyright Eileen Anderson.



    Source link