 |
|
Studies
The Cornell university study
Cornell Study - A study was done on 2 anti-barking collar available on the market (shock collar & spray collar). During a trial period of two weeks, each collar was analyzed for effectiveness & satisfaction. The chock collar showed 44.4% effectiveness and the spray collar demonstrated a 88.9% reduction in barking. People preferred the spray collar. They felt is was more humane for the dog and also definitively more effective. For more information on the study www.cornell.edu  The SPCA testBecause Aboistop is not a cruel method of preventing dogs from barking, we at the Canadian SPCA have accepted to test the product on one hundred dogs who were barking excessively. The result was not very long in coming and very quickly the dogs stopped barking. We are happy to fully endorse this product and to recommend it as an alternative method to massive abandonment of dogs who becomes a nuisance because of their constant barking." 
Pierre Barnoti, President S.P.C.A. Comparing comparing the effectiveness of citronella with unscented odours in the ant--barking spray collarThe Study was made on 32 dogs and presented at the third International Congress on Veterinary Behavioural medicine in Vancouver, Canada. Each bark was calculated for each dog with a bark counter. The table shows the results and the differences in barking reduction between the two sprays. The percentage of satisfaction, in this study, tends to support previous studies. 85% or 27 owners reported that they were satisfied with the citronella odour and 80% or 25 owners reported their satisfaction with the unscented odour. The odour does not play a major role in reducing the number of barks per week. We also found some residual learning 67.7% after removing the spray from the collar.  Consumer satisfaction study of the Citronella collar Sondage d'opinion SDI enr.
The citronella spray collar had no effect on 21 of the 150 dogs (14%). It would seem that those dogs got used to the citronella spray. SSSCAT study
This study investigated a motion detector device Ssscat that combines sound and spray as a deterrent for undesirable behavior in cats. Forty three cats were videotaped for three consecutive days, with a baseline on day one, combined sound and spray on day two and sound alone on day three. Nonparametric repeated measures analysis was utilized. Results were highly significant with 87.6% improvement for jumping onto furniture, 87.5% for entering rooms and 96.0% for miscellaneous behavior such as eating plants. Overall improvement was 88.9% with 93% of cats reduced to two attempts or less by day three. At the 15 day follow-up, of 32 cats, 96% were controlled (2 attempts or less) and 44% had ceased the behavior entirely. RECOMMENDING BARK CONTROL DEVICESAuthor Gary M. Landsberg, D.V.M. Citronella spray collars were tested as to their effectiveness in
controlling barking in dogs in two veterinary hospitals. Dogs that
were in the hospital kennels for grooming or boarding (ie, the collars
were not used on ill or postsurgical patients) were fitted with a
citronella spray collar if they were deemed to be barking persistently
or frequently enough to disturb or "arouse" other patients or hospital
staff. Of 62 dogs, barking was eliminated in 40 dogs (65%) and reduced
in another 17 dogs (27%). Five of the dogs (8%) showed no improvement.
In most cases where the collar was effective, barking ceased or was
controlled within the first 5 barks. Hospital staff were extremely
pleased with the improvement in the kennel environment and in the
Toronto location, citronella spray collars have become a routine aspect
of hospital noise control. Follow
this link for more information. Efficacy of disruptive stimulus as opposed to punishing stimulusIn late 1998, two French vets (Pageat, P. and Tesseire, Y.) did a study regarding the efficacy of disruptive stimulus as opposed to punishing stimulus. This is important in your case because they specifically used a citronella collar to eliminate barking. Here is a portion of the abstract: The concept of "disruptive stimulus" results from behavioral patterns. It can be defined as a jarring stimulus that interrupts the course of the sequence, which produces an expectation stage enabling enticement of the pet to another (desired) activity. The present study starts from this definition to show the usefulness of a citronella spray (device called ABOISTOP?, by DYNAVET, France) as such a stimulus in dogs showing territorial barking. 52 dogs spending at least 4 hours a day in a garden adjacent to a busy street were included. The trial compares the effects of a punitive stimulus consisting of a garden-hose spraying water, to the ABOISTOP? collar. Treatment was allocated at random. Once a week, each owner noted the frequency of barking towards 10 pedestrians. A first control was done on day 0 (which provides the reference figure), then every seventh day till day 35 when therapy was stopped. Relapses were to be assessed on day 90. It should be noted that every bark interruption by the device was immediately followed by a play session initiated by the owner (redirection of behavior). [emphasis inserted by Doug] In the "punishment group" we could note a sudden cessation of barking, as early as on day 7, which was subsequently steady until day 28. In the "disruptive group" the decrease of barking was more gradual (48.6% barking on day 7 - 16.9% on day 14) and a total disappearance could be heard by day 21. In addition, the relapse rate on day 90 was 86% in the "punishment group" versus 3.8% in the "disruptive group". For more information on the barking dog study click here. Comparison of two treatments for preventing dogs eating their own faecesDr Deborah Wells Canine Behaviour Centre, School of Psychology, Queen's University of Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN. Twenty-eight domestic dogs with the behavioural problem of eating their own faeces were treated in two ways. Half of them were treated with a citronella spray collar, and the others were treated with sound therapy. To assess the relative efficacy of the treatments their owners rated the severity of their dog's faeces eating for a week before the study began, during each of three weeks of treatment, and at the end of a fourth week during which they had not been treated. The owners reported a significantly lower incidence of the behavioural problem during the first week of both treatments, but in the dogs treated by sound therapy its incidence subsequently increased. The behavioural problem was reduced most effectively in the dogs treated with the spray collar, and continued to decrease during the period of treatment. Click here for more information.
http://www.psych.qub.ac.uk/staff/teaching/wells/profile/index.aspx Zootechnie médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe
The Anti Bark Spray Collar was used to help educate 39 dogs of the Zootechnie Saint-Hyacinthe Veterinary School. It has reduced the barking noise to an acceptable level. It’s interesting to notice the rapid reduction of barking and the effectiveness of the barking device. This figure represents the results obtained without the spray collar during the first day and the sound level obtained during the second day with the use of the Multivet Anti Bark Spray collar. We can notice with this graph that the sound level is significantly lower after the use of the device. The decibel level AFTER is about the same as a voice conversation between two humans. These results are conclusive and comparable to previous results obtain in veterinary clinics. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
