# There's something I don't get.



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

All you clicker trainers out there, please explain this to me, lol. I don't understand clickers. I thought I did, but I really don't. Someone please enlighten me!

Okay, from what I understand, after you train the dog to understand what a clicker means, it's used to show the dog that you're acknowledging that he did something correct. Okay fine, but why can't you use a verbal marker word instead? If you use a specific word or tone for the same purpose as the clicker, why would you bother spending $2 on a thing you have to carry around when you've got a free, convenient one in your gullet? Is it a matter of having a 100% consistent sound? 

Second, are dogs trained to expect/look for an additional reward when they hear the click? Isn't "charging the clicker" teaching the dog that after they hear a click, food comes? Or does the click itself become a reward? If it's the former, how does one juggle clicker training while simultaneously trying to fade out treats for commands? If you think of Pavlov's experiement with the dog and the bell, he was training the dog to anticipate food whenever the bell rang. He wasn't teaching the dog to get satisfaction out of salivating and hearing a bell ring. How do you keep that anticipation of food from becoming a crutch? I've never really "charged" a marker word like a clicker, I've always sort of assumed that you start out with treats to teach, but after the command is solid and the dog understands what to do, the excitement in your voice when you give verbal praise was rewarding enough to the dog, because they understand intonation. Your tone of voice communicates to the dog that you're happy with what he just did. A click doesn't have much intonation, however, so why should a dog consider it to be rewarding enough on its own?

Also, I reward Basil ALL the time for doing things I like, even if they happen by chance, and not just during training sessions. I use verbal praise and edible treats if I have some on hand. I guess you could carry a clicker everywhere with you so you can reward on the fly, but for those that use clickers, do you use clickers everywhere or only during training sessions? And if you only use the clicker during training sessions, how do you let the dog know he did something correct? 

Just trying to figure out what the deal is with clickers, lol!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

All you clicker trainers out there, please explain this to me, lol. I don't understand clickers. I thought I did, but I really don't. Someone please enlighten me!

Okay, from what I understand, after you train the dog to understand what a clicker means, it's used to show the dog that you're acknowledging that he did something correct. Okay fine, but why can't you use a verbal marker word instead? If you use a specific word or tone for the same purpose as the clicker, why would you bother spending $2 on a thing you have to carry around when you've got a free, convenient one in your gullet? Is it a matter of having a 100% consistent sound? 

*Because it's a distinct, crisp sound that my dogs don't hear on a daily basis in conversation. I tend to throw words like "good" and "cute" and "silly" and a load of other words on a daily basis, most likely when I'm doling out food and treats and toys and walks and attention. 
For Tag, the word "Good" was accidently trained as a "keep going!" signal, meaning "you're almost there!" which comes in handy during a rally run through, or in the middle of an agility course AFTER the clicker is no longer needed for teaching something specific. My hand-eye coordination is much better than my mouth-eye coordination, and it's easier for me to capture a click than to say "good boy!" 
Plus, I can say "good" several different ways. A high pitched "good!" sounds different than a sarcastic "well, THAT was GOOD..." which sounds different than "Good Lord!", etc. Maybe if they hear those words and don't get a reinforcement, they will eventually start to tune it out and the word will loose charge.*

Second, are dogs trained to expect/look for an additional reward when they hear the click? Isn't "charging the clicker" teaching the dog that after they hear a click, food comes? Or does the click itself become a reward? If it's the former, how does one juggle clicker training while simultaneously trying to fade out treats for commands? If you think of Pavlov's experiement with the dog and the bell, he was training the dog to anticipate food whenever the bell rang. He wasn't teaching the dog to get satisfaction out of salivating and hearing a bell ring. How do you keep that anticipation of food from becoming a crutch? I've never really "charged" a marker word like a clicker, I've always sort of assumed that you start out with treats to teach, but after the command is solid and the dog understands what to do, the excitement in your voice when you give verbal praise was rewarding enough to the dog, because they understand intonation. Your tone of voice communicates to the dog that you're happy with what he just did. A click doesn't have much intonation, however, so why should a dog consider it to be rewarding enough on its own?

*I really suggest buying the book "Reaching the Animal Mind" by Karen Pryor, because she discusses this exact same thing on a scientific scale, and it was very VERY interesting. On one or two occasions and those occasions alone, Tag got so into a game we were playing that he ignored the food until he figured out what it was he was supposed to be doing. Very unlike him, and he hasn't done it much, but it was something I found very interesting. I've heard other trainers with clicker savvy dogs say the same thing!*

Also, I reward Basil ALL the time for doing things I like, even if they happen by chance, and not just during training sessions. I use verbal praise and edible treats if I have some on hand. I guess you could carry a clicker everywhere with you so you can reward on the fly, but for those that use clickers, do you use clickers everywhere or only during training sessions? And if you only use the clicker during training sessions, how do you let the dog know he did something correct? 

*With a new puppy (or dog) I pretty much carry a clicker around with me for the first week or two so I can start capturing things I like. After they have the basic concept I don't carry it with me, but reserve it for training sessions. Accidently teaching a KGS was one of the best accidental thing I ever did 
When Tag was a baby, I kept a clicker and treats at my computer desk. I ignored him. Anytime he voluntarily came over to me, he got a click, treat, and was told what a clever little fellow he was. When he was a baby, I would let him off leash in a fenced area and just start walking. He was young enough to have that naturallly want to follow puppy instinct, so I took advantage of it. Whenever he caught up to me...click. 
This helped teach a decent LLW and a really snazzy heel, because focused attention/eye contact also got clicked. It also eliminated a lot of the problems a lot of pet owners seem to have (that I also had with Auz because I didn't raise him with any of these guidelines)..."but the second I unsnap the leash it's like I don't exist!"...."he drags me down the street!"...."he totally forgets I exist when he sees another dog, a car, a kid, a person, a cat" yadda yadda yadda. *

Just trying to figure out what the deal is with clickers, lol!
*The funny thing is, it's not like dogs automatically understand a clicker. The only thing I used a clicker for with Dude (when I was learning what it was all about) was for eye contact. So for the longest time, everytime I started a clicker session I got a dog who would freeze and stare at me, and REFUSE to do anything else unless I cued him. To him, the clicker wasn't a marker, or a bridge, or a reliable predictor of something good. It was a cue for "watch". 
I could have kept Tag on a collar and leash, clicked and then popped the leash. Click, leash pop. Click, leash pop. It wouldn't have taken long for me to have "loaded" the clicker to mean "you just earned yourself a punishment" (or a correction, or whatever you want to call it). 
All this is JMO. There are as many ways to clicker train as there are trainers to think the methods up, and I really don't think I've seen or talked to anyone who uses it EXACTLY the same way as another. I saw someone using it as a keep going signal (agility training...("jump, click....jump, click....jump, click...sequence over! Here's your treat!") I choose to say a click ends a behavior. Some people don't. My guess is it has a lot to do with how you start the rules of the game, and keep consistent with them. The click can't end the behavior one day and not the next. When I was teaching Tag his contacts, a click meant "that was perfect". I'd toss a treat to the side, he'd gobble it up and he would be all set up to put 2o2o again. *


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

You can use any sound you want. What's so good about the clicker is that the sound is sharp, quick and the same every time. The human voice tends to vary with mood, and it's difficult to produce the exact same sound every time. But anything that produces a sharp short noise can be used.

The clicker is only for training. Once the behaviour is on cue, you no longer need to use it, because the dog already knows what it's supposed to do, and it will know when it got it right, and it will know when it gets a treat it's for the behaviour that it just did.

So you don't keep clicking the dog once he already knows the cue, and no, the clicker is not the reward. The clicker marks the exact behaviour that you want to enforce, which is why you want a short sharp sound. "Good dog" takes too long, and by the time you finish saying it the dog could be doing something completely different. With the click you mark the behaviour, and the click generally ends the behaviour, but it doesn't matter what the dog is doing once you get the treat to him, because it was the click that marked the behaviour.

I clicker train, but I don't always use the clicker. Like when I taught my dog high five. I clicked her when she pawed at me (she's a natural pawer), and she got that pawing was good. But the next time she did it I didn't have my clicker on me, so I then just told her she was good and gave her a big cuddle, which works well for her because she's a big sook. But she had already gotten the idea that pawing was good.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Okay fine, but why can't you use a verbal marker word instead?


You can use whatever you want. There's nothing "magical" about the clicker sound. That's why I HATE HATE HATE it's called "clicker training" because it's just marking and rewarding.

Anything can be a reward marker if you teach the dog that's what it means. Clap your hands, hiss, stomp the ground, slap your butt, slap his butt, say "yes", or "good boy" (my verbal marker), whatever. As long as you can do it with precise timing and consistency - go for it.



Nargle said:


> If you use a specific word or tone for the same purpose as the clicker, why would you bother spending $2 on a thing you have to carry around when you've got a free, convenient one in your gullet? Is it a matter of having a 100% consistent sound?


Yes. That said, you don't have to be PERFECTLY consistent, but be close. If you teach "Yes!" with a moderately high pitched voice, don't say YES! with a booming deep voice. That will be too different (at least at first - nothing says you can't make BOTH reward markers...)

You don't HAVE to carry the clicker around everywhere. Once a behavior is learned, you can cue it, dog does it, praise/reward/both/neither/use "life rewards", move on. No where in "clicker training" does it state it has to be a new appendage. 



Nargle said:


> Second, are dogs trained to expect/look for an additional reward when they hear the click? Isn't "charging the clicker" teaching the dog that after they hear a click, food comes?


The "click" means a REWARD comes. It does NOT have to be food. 



Nargle said:


> Or does the click itself become a reward? If it's the former, how does one juggle clicker training while simultaneously trying to fade out treats for commands?


Is the behavior learned? Yes? You don't need to click it. The clicker is during the learning process and the behavior is what's cemented in his mind. The clicker is tells him what he just did was right so he will do it more often. Once he does it reliably, the behavior is burned in so clicking isn't necessary.



Nargle said:


> If you think of Pavlov's experiement with the dog and the bell, he was training the dog to anticipate food whenever the bell rang. He wasn't teaching the dog to get satisfaction out of salivating and hearing a bell ring. How do you keep that anticipation of food from becoming a crutch?


Because Pavlov was using classical conditioning. He was not requiring a behavior before he rang the bell. 

If Pavlov required the dog to sit before he rang the bell, then he'd be using Operant Conditioning. 

What Pavlov's experiment showed is that you can condition one stimulus to predict another, something mark-and-reward training uses to tell the dog the precise moment he did something right.



Nargle said:


> I've never really "charged" a marker word like a clicker, I've always sort of assumed that you start out with treats to teach, but after the command is solid and the dog understands what to do, the excitement in your voice when you give verbal praise was rewarding enough to the dog, because they understand intonation.


If you praise the dog before rewarding him, guess what? You're charging a verbal reward marker. The only difference is the concerted effort to use a specific and consistent word/sound/signal.

Dogs understand intonation, but they can also be taught other meanings to intonation. I don't always praise Wally in some high pitched voice. That doesn't mean that he things "oh I got it wrong" because I didn't get all squeaky. I can say "good boy" in a normal voice and he'll be looking for a reward and get all bright-eyed and tail waggy and eager/drivey just as much as if I jumped up and down, squeaked like a school girl, and got all "oohahhh what goooooood doggy! yes your are!!"



Nargle said:


> Your tone of voice communicates to the dog that you're happy with what he just did. A click doesn't have much intonation, however, so why should a dog consider it to be rewarding enough on its own?


Re-read what you wrote about Pavlov's experiment. You will answer this question yourself.



Nargle said:


> Also, I reward Basil ALL the time for doing things I like, even if they happen by chance, and not just during training sessions. I use verbal praise and edible treats if I have some on hand. I guess you could carry a clicker everywhere with you so you can reward on the fly, but for those that use clickers, do you use clickers everywhere or only during training sessions?


If it's on me, I'll use it. When I'm shaping, I use it. When I was working through his fear issues, I used it. 



Nargle said:


> And if you only use the clicker during training sessions, how do you let the dog know he did something correct?


By charging a reward marker and using that.


----------



## That'llDo (Apr 13, 2010)

I actually only use the clicker when I am first starting to train a behavior, and for free shaping. As already mentioned, the click is faster and more consistent of sound. I also find it helps me not confuse my dogs with all my chattering.  I bother with doing it because for learning a new behavior, it is faster than using just a marker word, I assume because the correlation of the marker with the EXACT moment of the desired behavior is much higher than with a marker word. Fading isn't a problem for me, because once I have a good strong response, I don't use it anymore. I also use "yes" as a marker if I don't have a clicker on me, but I do sometimes carry one around with me. If I am trying to teach a trick by capturing, I keep it with me, because it seems to be much more relevant of a sound. (What I mean by that is, if my dog spontaneously does the thing I'm looking for, the sound of the clicker tells them "hey, that thing was good" better than my vocal cue, which fades in with the rest of the talking I do during these times where I am not specifically "training" but am looking for behaviors to capture.)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I was going to reply point by point but I can't really add too much that isn't a repeat.

I do keep a clicker on me most the time. There's a couple at home, one in my car, and one in my purse. I use it whenever I feel like it and just use 'yes' for other situations. It depends.

The most common misconception about clickers is that the dog won't work without the clicker. I've heard this over and over- 'I don't want to be dependent on something I have to carry around'. Well... that's completely not understanding the way clicker training works. The click isn't the reward, it's a mark. The dog will work without the click. We go back and forth between click and yes just fine. 

I would suggest trying it if you haven't tried it before. I find clickers much more exact than just using your voice. Too much variation and intonation in the human voice. I know you're probably thinking 'Well it works just fine for us' but I would try the clicker. I only started clickering about a year and a half ago and it just works so much better because I think it is just much clearer to dogs. Clickering is really helpful with shaping- fast behaviors and you need to mark something at JUST the right instant. Clicks are sharp and short and can be applied much faster than saying a word or phrase. If you mark the wrong part of a behavior it will take you longer to get the behavior down. 

All my agility and obed classes are clicker based.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

According to a trainer I talked to, it's hard for a person, especially a beginner trainer to use the right tone and excitement in their voice every time. If you think you can, you don't need a clicker. Quite a few trainers I know just use a YES! to mark the correct behavior. I myself, just use YES! as well and it's worked fine.

Why do I use YES!? Because carrying a clicker is too hard while holding a leash, treats, ball throwing device and plastic poop bags. And then Nia chewed the clicked and broke the button right off lol.


----------



## evad (Sep 22, 2010)

It's easier than summoning my enthusiastic high pitch voice to praise over and over again while training. Alternatively you can train a very short word the same way you train a click (such as "yep"), but a click is more recognizable and doesn't sound like normal speech.

It's also easy to mark quick behavior you want the dog to repeat (to eventually have a cue for that behavior). This is mostly useful when the behavior is so fast than you cant praise+treat in time. It could be something really quick like a cocked head. Click every time your dog cocks their head (you would have a hard time praise+treating to mark that occasion since it usually only lasts a second or 2) and they will do it more often, eventually you will be able to get it on a cue.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I would suggest trying it if you haven't tried it before.


I actually have tried using the clicker, I used a clicker for about a month straight, but for some reason he was always startled by the click, and would flinch and run away just a little. It seemed to completely throw him off and it was difficult to get back on track. I know it's just a matter of conditioning him to feel less frightened by the sound, but at the time it seemed more of a hassle than it was worth. I think part of the problem is that his anxiety medication for SA at the time seemed to make him a lot more jumpy than usual.

I'm not sure if this really applies to clickers, but I'm trying to communicate with Basil more and more through body language. For instance, in attempt to be able to calm Basil down on command, I've trained him to blink and relax his facial muscles, and the cue is blinking and relaxing my own facial muscles. Not sure why, but I do like the idea of being able to make as little noise as possible when training, and only relying on gestures to communicate. Would it be impossible to make a facial expression, like a smile, be a marker? FTR I have and currently am still working diligently to make "watch me" his default behavior so he keeps his eyes on me. My current marker, btw, is a soft "Good," generally spoken with the same tone every time. I tend to not speak at all aside from the marker when training, and I personally think I'm pretty good at controlling my body language.

I'm still soaking in the rest of the posts, so I'll reply to them later. :biggrin1:


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Would it be impossible to make a facial expression, like a smile, be a marker?


Not at all. If Basil watches and reads your expressions/body very well and is in tune with them - go for it! Whatever works with you and your dog. 

Just charge it like anything else. Smile - treat. Smile - treat. Etc.





Nargle said:


> FTR I have and currently am still working diligently to make "watch me" his default behavior so he keeps his eyes on me. My current marker, btw, is a soft "Good," generally spoken with the same tone every time. I tend to not speak at all aside from the marker when training, and I personally think I'm pretty good at controlling my body language.


That's a good strength to have. I agree with keeping as quiet as possible - just let your markers (or the lack of) do your "talking" for you. Keeps things cleaner, simpler, and easier for the dog to decipher, imo. 

If body language is your best way to communicate with Basil, run with it. 

I think it's rather cool myself. Wish I could communicate that well with my body to Wally.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226

This is a little bit of theory (not yet proved, but in the works) about a non verbal marker signal (ie click) working neurophysiologically differently than a verbal marker. It's an interesting theory. The Karen Pryor website requires you to register to see it, but it's free so worth looking at. I've become personally very interested in the neurolology of learning and brain plasticity so welcome to my geek world. LOL

TAG teaching (teaching humans with a clicker) is also quite interesting..it appears that when teaching a complex athletic movement for example, using a tag (click) in shaping the movement triggers some sort of subconscious reflexive learning that produces a faster muscle memory. 
Check out the info and videos here: http://www.tagteach.com/

Aside from that, I find the clicker training does a couple of things for ME:
1/ it forces me to improve my timing
2/ it encourages me to think about how to shape behaviour
3/ it encourages me to shut the hell up, forces me to be patient and improves my observational skills
4/ last but by far not the least...shaping with the clicker has given me the opportunity (while doing all the above) to SEE my dog actively thinking and working out what I want from her. This in itself was worth learning how it works and putting the time in. I'm still not a "clicker trainer" in a big way, because I haven't figured out yet how to incorporate it into my training others..but I'm working on it.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

I'm a little bit too uncoordinated for the clicker. In puppy class they use clickers and I have a hell of a time juggling clicker, treat, and leash all at the same time. What I did was, at home, I loaded a click-like sound that I make with my tongue. Works much better for me. Not only do I have trouble juggling everything, I don't always have the clicker with me. The tongue click, once learned by the dog, is great for gaining dog's attention. It gets the dog's attention without everyone else in the vicinity turning around at the sound.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Quote Originally Posted by Nargle View Post
Would it be impossible to make a facial expression, like a smile, be a marker?
Not at all. If Basil watches and reads your expressions/body very well and is in tune with them - go for it! Whatever works with you and your dog.

Just charge it like anything else. Smile - treat. Smile - treat. Etc.



Quote Originally Posted by Nargle View Post
FTR I have and currently am still working diligently to make "watch me" his default behavior so he keeps his eyes on me. My current marker, btw, is a soft "Good," generally spoken with the same tone every time. I tend to not speak at all aside from the marker when training, and I personally think I'm pretty good at controlling my body language.
That's a good strength to have. I agree with keeping as quiet as possible - just let your markers (or the lack of) do your "talking" for you. Keeps things cleaner, simpler, and easier for the dog to decipher, imo.

If body language is your best way to communicate with Basil, run with it.

I think it's rather cool myself. Wish I could communicate that well with my body to Wally. 

*If I start laughing, Tag takes it as a sign he's doing well. Same deal, different scenario...if I heave an annoyed sigh, he turns and walks away. I never meant to really train either of those things, but I suppose working on various things I would sigh if he didn't offer something clickable or rewardable, and he took it to mean a NRM. It's easier than saying "no" and easier than "aht aht". And it's quiet. 
I usually don't talk when I'm using a clicker for something brand new. The first trainer I took Dude to (the J&P one) was all about chatting along non-stop while training, I think (now) it was to jolly them up a bit. Tag doesn't NEED jollied up when he's working, so I tape my mouth shut. When I'm through using the clicker and have put a cue to whatever it is I'm teaching, I substitute "good" unconciously. It's loaded as that KGS, which is twice the fun--he doesn't know if he's going to get a treat, a toy, praise, or another cue. He's an adrenaline junkie.*



Cracker said:


> http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226
> 
> This is a little bit of theory (not yet proved, but in the works) about a non verbal marker signal (ie click) working neurophysiologically differently than a verbal marker. It's an interesting theory. The Karen Pryor website requires you to register to see it, but it's free so worth looking at. I've become personally very interested in the neurolology of learning and brain plasticity so welcome to my geek world. LOL
> 
> ...


Karen Pryors "Reaching The Animal Mind" talks about the above in some serious depth, not only in dogs but in cats, horses, apes, dolphins, whales, autistic/special needs kids, gymnasts, etc. The information on using a marker with special needs kids was very cool, very interesting, and very uplifting. One kid realized she could control lighting with her laughter. The louder she laughed, the more the lights danced.
When I was in HS, I used "train an incompatible behavior" a lot on other kids in my class. Snottiness, cattiness, gossip, etc was ignored or answered with an "uh huh". Any attempt to be sane, normal, not snotty, not catty, etc was "rewarded" with my attention and interest. It wasn't 100% but it was a damned fine improvement


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

JuneBud said:


> I'm a little bit too uncoordinated for the clicker. In puppy class they use clickers and I have a hell of a time juggling clicker, treat, and leash all at the same time. What I did was, at home, I loaded a click-like sound that I make with my tongue. Works much better for me. Not only do I have trouble juggling everything, I don't always have the clicker with me. The tongue click, once learned by the dog, is great for gaining dog's attention. It gets the dog's attention without everyone else in the vicinity turning around at the sound.


Two words: Waist leash

Hands off training is best for clicker work, meaning waist leash or longish leash (6 ft) on the floor and under your foot. Not only does this free up your hands while you get accustomed to using the clicker but it also means you are not using the leash as a cue or corrections. The very first thing I tried to teach Cracker was LLW and I had to get my hands off the leash to break MY OWN habit of leash yanking..lol. I get people at class to stand on their leashes all the time, because it is just so "human nature" to pull UP if the pup doesn't sit right away or yank on the leash if the pup isn't paying attention and there are better ways to do it that don't interfere with the learning.

I also found putting the clicker on an elastic for around my wrist improved the picture a lot.

I don't give a dang if someone looks at us because I've clicked for something. People make so much more noise than my clicker ever would...lol. Talking on the phone, talking to themselves..etc.


----------



## JuneBud (Feb 17, 2010)

I don't yank on the leash to get him to sit, don't ever need to. He usually just needs the hand signal. Also, all I have to do is say his name and I have his full attention. The only time his leash gets yanked is when he does it himself outside when he sees a rabbit before I do or gets scared and wants back in. I don't have any trouble with sit, stay, down, etc. It's when the instructor has me take the leash, walk him, have him sit when I stop, or when we do leave-it while walking on leash that I run into trouble. We've also been using a long line and running away and calling "come" - that's easier, the trainer is holding the leash.  I learned to be a fairly good horseback rider, but it took me forever to get coordinated enough with everything.

I have a clicker that I hang around my neck on a string so it's at chest level and easy to reach - then I forget to use it.

Speaking of talking on the phone, Kodi hears the person on the other end and barks when they talk, being the good little watch dog that he is. I can't even get up when I'm sitting down, no matter how quiet I am. He hears my knee click from the next room. I was just watching him while I got up and he just slept until my knee cracked, not very loud at all, and his eyes opened at that instant. There is no sneaking around on him!


----------



## That'llDo (Apr 13, 2010)

Cracker said:


> http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226
> 
> This is a little bit of theory (not yet proved, but in the works) about a non verbal marker signal (ie click) working neurophysiologically differently than a verbal marker. It's an interesting theory. The Karen Pryor website requires you to register to see it, but it's free so worth looking at. I've become personally very interested in the neurolology of learning and brain plasticity so welcome to my geek world. LOL


That is an interesting hypothesis, thanks for posting the link! I am sure there is a limbic response to the clicker, and it will be interesting to see some real data on whether or not that is the reason why it works better. I wonder if there is any similar work done already....

(You haven't even SEEN brain-geekiness until you've been to a neuroscientist party. THAT is geek world, my friend.)


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

That is an interesting hypothesis, thanks for posting the link! I am sure there is a limbic response to the clicker, and it will be interesting to see some real data on whether or not that is the reason why it works better. I wonder if there is any similar work done already....
*
www.reachingtheanimalmind.com Geeks like me really like this site  Though I'm not a scientist OR a dog trainer (I am a dog owner with a respect for scientific training <G>), I find readhing the whys and hows interesting. *

(You haven't even SEEN brain-geekiness until you've been to a neuroscientist party. THAT is geek world, my friend.)
*I don't know if the fact I'd like to go to a party like that makes me a geek, or if happily ADMITTING it would make me a geek *


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Cracker said:


> http://www.clickertraining.com/node/226
> 
> This is a little bit of theory (not yet proved, but in the works) about a non verbal marker signal (ie click) working neurophysiologically differently than a verbal marker. It's an interesting theory.


Differently - but better?

Interesting you bring this up as I'm in a discussion with someone on dogforum (no s) about this same topic. 

She brought up a similar study to this that a click reaches a part of the brain that processes faster than the thought area of the brain (which is where human sounds have to be processed).

My question here is the same as there - if the sharp sound is faster - then why does Wally "jump" just as fast with my verbal marker (a simple "good boy") as he does when he hears the click? I literally see no difference in reaction time or reaction. Both work just as well for free shaping (just the other day, I free-shaped him from being scared of an object to picking it up and bringing it to me in 2 minutes).


----------



## That'llDo (Apr 13, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> www.reachingtheanimalmind.com Geeks like me really like this site  Though I'm not a scientist OR a dog trainer (I am a dog owner with a respect for scientific training <G>), I find readhing the whys and hows interesting.


I'll check it out. What I really want is the related journal articles, which I can probably find just as well myself, but at least I can start there for references. Thanks!



> (You haven't even SEEN brain-geekiness until you've been to a neuroscientist party. THAT is geek world, my friend.)
> *I don't know if the fact I'd like to go to a party like that makes me a geek, or if happily ADMITTING it would make me a geek *


Next time you're in the PNW, look me up. We'll play beer pong while I teach you about in situ neurophysiology. 



KBLover said:


> Differently - but better?
> 
> Interesting you bring this up as I'm in a discussion with someone on dogforum (no s) about this same topic.
> 
> ...


(Everybody ready for the part where I show I know too much theoretically and not enough in practical application to dogs? Good, let's go!)

Because how fast Wally "jumps" isn't the relevant reaction time. There are two separate things going on (actually, way more than two, but let's call it two anyway). First, there is his CC response to the click or the "good boy." For him to respond to get his cookie, either way, the sound has to go through a pathway that includes his auditory processing cortex, then a signal gets passed to his motor cortex and he reacts, which takes a set amount of time. 

That is totally separate from the learning of the new behavior, which is (most likely, this is pretty well accepted but not totally for sure) dependent on a spike of dopamine (DA) he gets in reaction to the treat, which comes as a reward for the behavior. Normally, the DA spike would come AFTER the cookie, as a response to getting it. And so, normal learning would be something like action-->reward-->DA spike. The closer the DA spike comes to the action, the more strongly the reaction is reinforced, and the faster he learns. A conditioned stimulus is strongly predictive of the reward, so the DA spike will actually come in response to the conditioned stimulus, just as it originally would for the unconditioned stimulus (ie, the cookie). So, adding in a click or a 'good boy' is a way to get the DA spike to be more closely associated with the behavior, and therefore the behavior is more strongly reinforced than if it took you a little while to get the treat, and he didn't get it until then. That's why it matters how fast the click is, because the faster it is, the closer the chemical brain signal that means he did it right is to the behavior. It's also why the uniformity of clicks matters, because a less variable conditioned stimulus more strongly predicts the reward. So, the reaction time that matters in learning the thing isn't something you can see at all, unless you've got brain electrodes in place.  (This stuff is happening in the basal ganglia, by the way. It is different from many other types of memory acquisition that take place in the hippocampus, or the limbic/amydala idea above. How THAT might affect all of this, I don't know, but the basal ganglia role in conditioning is fairly strongly supported.)

As for the actual change in time to learn a behavior, it has to be based on group averages. Maybe Wally, being particularly savvy to free-shaping, can pick up way faster. Maybe you are particularly good at generating fast, uniform speech (though I believe the latency will still be a bit longer than the click; generating speech requires an extra step compared to generating a movement like clicking the clicker, so I would bet there are a few hundred milliseconds of difference there). Alternatively, maybe your timing personally happens to be better with speech than with the clicker. If a person were particularly bad at timing the click, then the benefit of the clicker would disappear. So...uh...I dunno.


----------



## Bart (Jul 15, 2010)

The marker can be a clicker or a word or almost anything taught to mean something to the dog. I heard of one person using a remote collar on a low level for a marker. If it's low enough to be non-aversive it can work. You could also use vibrate. I use a verbal (word) and I wouldn't recommend anything but using a word. Nothing wrong with clickers, the remote collar idea sounds bad to me but somebody did it.

Marker training is based on operant conditioning. Markers are a bridge to positive reinforcement. That's all. The positive reinforcer is doing the work but until someone invents a remote collar than can deliver the reinforcement, we use a bridge to associate the desired behavior with the reinforcer (food or toy) that comes a little later.

You don't fade the marker or the reinforcer, but you start to extend the series of required behaviors before the dog receives the terminal bridge to the reinforcer. You can introduce secondary bridges for encouragement so the dog knows that he is doing right and reward is available if he continues.

So it goes something like

Behavior.Command.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Marker.Reinforcer

Notice the behavior is learned by backchaining the command to the behavior. In this way you can put several learned commands together to get a complex behavior which you then back chain on a single command.

The dog learns to work more and more between starting and the mark until you get to the point where the mark comes just before the title or trophy.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

That'llDo said:


> A conditioned stimulus is strongly predictive of the reward, so the DA spike will actually come in response to the conditioned stimulus, just as it originally would for the unconditioned stimulus (ie, the cookie).


Which is why I wonder how/if there's any difference between a click being the marker and a word/speech/other sound being the marker.

Both serve the same purpose, both require precise timing - so why is a click faster at acquiring behavior than a word that's spoken with a consistent enough tone (i.e. not squeaky then booming loud, then whisper quiet, not pronounced 10 different ways, etc, which is probably why words like Yes or Good are common - they are easy to pronounce consistently)?

To me, the differences come more in reinforcement history (how strongly the marker predicts the reward? The stronger the faster) and the timing (to target the right behavior/slice of a more complex behavior). If all of the other stuff happens in split seconds that we really can't take advantage of as trainers/handlers, does it matter in practice?




That'llDo said:


> As for the actual change in time to learn a behavior, it has to be based on group averages. Maybe Wally, being particularly savvy to free-shaping, can pick up way faster. Maybe you are particularly good at generating fast, uniform speech (though I believe the latency will still be a bit longer than the click; generating speech requires an extra step compared to generating a movement like clicking the clicker, so I would bet there are a few hundred milliseconds of difference there). Alternatively, maybe your timing personally happens to be better with speech than with the clicker. If a person were particularly bad at timing the click, then the benefit of the clicker would disappear. So...uh...I dunno.


There seems like there's tons more factors involved to say that one kind of marker is "always" better than another.

I say "good boy" relatively quickly but still clearly (I don't say "goooood boooooooooooy" [that's my mom LOL] and it doesn't come out like "gooboi") but still if it's "word vs click" the word should still be "worse" right?

To me, the overall point is the part you put in the middle - why marker training works and works well - not necessarily what the marker is, as long as the dog understands the meaning/association the marker is supposed to have and it is applied with good enough timing for the dog to understand what behavior triggered it.


----------



## That'llDo (Apr 13, 2010)

KBLover said:


> Which is why I wonder how/if there's any difference between a click being the marker and a word/speech/other sound being the marker.
> 
> Both serve the same purpose, both require precise timing - so why is a click faster at acquiring behavior than a word that's spoken with a consistent enough tone (i.e. not squeaky then booming loud, then whisper quiet, not pronounced 10 different ways, etc, which is probably why words like Yes or Good are common - they are easy to pronounce consistently)?


I would guess that even very consistent speech is less consistent than the mechanical marker. I have not seen any spectral analysis of the two sounds to prove this (not that I've looked, either, it may be out there), but I would guess that the marker that is physiologically complicated to produce will be less perfectly consistent than the clicker, and therefore less perfectly predict the reward.



> To me, the differences come more in reinforcement history (how strongly the marker predicts the reward? The stronger the faster) and the timing (to target the right behavior/slice of a more complex behavior). If all of the other stuff happens in split seconds that we really can't take advantage of as trainers/handlers, does it matter in practice?


Yes, both of those matter very much, and the point I was trying to make is that the practical difference noted in the speed of acquisition may be in exactly those parameters. If the clicker is more consistent of a sound, than the reward history for that exact sound is stronger than it would be for the same number of trials using a voice command. The timing IS the "other stuff that happens in split seconds" isn't it? A few hundred milliseconds is not a lot to you consciously, but it is a long time to a neuron. If the clicker response is a couple tenths of a second faster than the voice response, that could make a significant difference on the time scale to the relevant brain circuitry. I don't know the literature specifically on clicker training (that's why I was asking about it), but it could easily be as simple as that _handlers_ are more likely to use the clicker correctly than the voice command, or the delay of a less than perfect handler is less detrimental with the faster, shorter sound of a clicker. Is it of practical use? Well, if the numbers I've seen cited, 30-50% reduction in acquisition time, are true, then yes, it is of practical use, at least to some part of the population.






> There seems like there's tons more factors involved to say that one kind of marker is "always" better than another.


Yes, LOTS of factors, and I didn't argue one is "always" better than the other. I am unlikely to argue "always" anything in biology, it is a bad idea! What I have seen suggested is that, overall, acquisition with a clicker is better than with voice markers. This has to come from population data, and so may be different than your personal experience. I would honestly be sort of curious how you determined that it makes no difference though? It wouldn't be an easy thing to test at all, and the controls I would want in an actual scientific study of this question would have to be pretty rigorous. (On re-read, I realized that might sound a little accusatory, and I don't mean it to be an insult or anything. It isn't anything to do with you personally, that is the first question I would ask of say, a journal article on the subject as well.)



> I say "good boy" relatively quickly but still clearly (I don't say "goooood boooooooooooy" [that's my mom LOL] and it doesn't come out like "gooboi") but still if it's "word vs click" the word should still be "worse" right?


Unless you produce speech without going through any speech processing, it should still be just a bit slower than clicking.  If you do, I know some scientists who would like to talk to you. 



> To me, the overall point is the part you put in the middle - why marker training works and works well - not necessarily what the marker is, as long as the dog understands the meaning/association the marker is supposed to have and it is applied with good enough timing for the dog to understand what behavior triggered it.


What the marker is can affect the application of the timing. I believe that is likely part of the key to the differences people have found in the acquisition time using one or the other (unless of course those results are spurious--again, I haven't studied the literature on this, maybe the studies suck, but I don't really have the time to dedicate to finding out right now). Sure, the marker can be anything, that's the point of conditioning, yeah? But even differences that are not perceptible at the conscious level DO make a difference at the neuronal level.

Just to muddy the water--you know, for fun--how positive are you about what Wally perceives as the reward marker? Any chance you twitch a muscle, smile just a little, or your eyes light up when he pleases you? If there is, than that could be a secondary conditioned stimulus, which may predict the conditioned stimulus, which predicts the unconditioned stimulus, and now you've got a clever boy who starts feeling the physiological reward before you even say good boy.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I want to hang out with That'll do and the neuro geeks. LOL..slightly off topic but there was an article in the paper the other day about "geek night" at a local pub. I am tempted to go...even though I'm not the "professional geek" (ie the phd, geez I've only got my high school LOL) I would LOVE to just listen in and ask questions. I am currently reading a book about neuroplasticity and it's relation to buddhist concepts..how's that for HUH? kind of stuff...lol.

Back on topic:
I do believe there is a spectral analysis of the difference in the sounds between speech and a clicker...I will try to find it.

Okay, couldn't find it...it must be in one of my books.

But I DID find this, a study set up just for what we are discussing. Here is the link:
http://www.clickertraining.com/files/Wood_Lindsay_CLICKER_BRIDGING_STIMULUS_EFFICACY.pdf

The results start on page 19. It is a full study so there is lots to read about how it was set up etc.
Here is the significant part, relevant to the discussion:

"Data from the present study provide strong evidence that the rate of novel behavior
acquisition is significantly faster for dogs trained with the clicker bridging stimulus in
comparison to dogs trained with the verbal word “good.” Clicker dogs learned the target
behavior on average of 20 minutes faster than verbal dogs and required an average of 38 fewer
primary reinforcements. Furthermore, this study is the first demonstration of the significant
effect of the clicker in facilitating learning of each task within a single behavior. As behaviors
are often composed of multiple tasks, the clicker’s impact is considerable not only at the
initiation of training, but also in the ease with which animals learn the new tasks that comprise a
single, final behavior."

The above quote is by Lindsay Wood, it is her study.

Enjoy..that is, if it's your "thing". LOL


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

The marker can be a clicker or a word or almost anything taught to mean something to the dog. I heard of one person using a remote collar on a low level for a marker. If it's low enough to be non-aversive it can work. You could also use vibrate. I use a verbal (word) and I wouldn't recommend anything but using a word. Nothing wrong with clickers, the remote collar idea sounds bad to me but somebody did it.

Marker training is based on operant conditioning. Markers are a bridge to positive reinforcement. That's all. The positive reinforcer is doing the work but until someone invents a remote collar than can deliver the reinforcement, we use a bridge to associate the desired behavior with the reinforcer (food or toy) that comes a little later.

*Not a collar, but close! If I were rich I would have ordered one of these for Auz years ago 
http://www.k-9bsd.com/
What a cool way to teach behaviors at a distance, unless your dog gets wise to the machine being present vs. not being present. Either way, I would imagine most dogs would like it, the way most dogs like clicker sessions!
I've heard of people using a vibration only stim on an e-collar to work with deaf dogs. It can work, it just depends IMO on the trainers savvy. You can't "accidently" hit the wrong button without expecting some serious set backs. *

You don't fade the marker or the reinforcer, but you start to extend the series of required behaviors before the dog receives the terminal bridge to the reinforcer. You can introduce secondary bridges for encouragement so the dog knows that he is doing right and reward is available if he continues.

So it goes something like

Behavior.Command.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Marker.Reinforcer
Command.Behavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Encouragement.MoreBehavior.Marker.Reinforcer

Notice the behavior is learned by backchaining the command to the behavior. In this way you can put several learned commands together to get a complex behavior which you then back chain on a single command.

The dog learns to work more and more between starting and the mark until you get to the point where the mark comes just before the title or trophy.

*For the most part, that's what I do (or did). I started using "heel" when Tag was still heeling a bit differently than I wanted, and what I got was a sloppy performance from him when I cued "heel". My fault. I named a behavior I wasn't happy with and expected different results, and I did it again with finishes (what's that definition of insanity again? ) 
Tag used to get rewarded for every jump, every tunnel, ever front, every finish. Anymore, he doesn't need that. In a way I suspect he knows he's going to get SOMETHING he likes (either a food treat, a toy, or a "what a good boy!"), and a cue with no reinforcement doesn't mean he's "wrong" anymore, it means the next cue is one step closer to reinforcement at some point. Probably makes no sense, as my ability to put my thoughts into words sucks, but hopefully you can get my drift.*



That'llDo said:


> Next time you're in the PNW, look me up. We'll play beer pong while I teach you about in situ neurophysiology.
> 
> 
> 
> (


Can you believe I've never played beer pong?  I've led a sheltered life! My idea of living on the edge is waiting until 30 seconds before the library closes in order to check out 10 books XD


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

That'llDo said:


> Yes, LOTS of factors, and I didn't argue one is "always" better than the other. I am unlikely to argue "always" anything in biology, it is a bad idea! What I have seen suggested is that, overall, acquisition with a clicker is better than with voice markers. This has to come from population data, and so may be different than your personal experience. I would honestly be sort of curious how you determined that it makes no difference though?


I judge the one thing I can - acquisition of behavior and how fast (i.e. how many trials, fractions of a slide of bread, how much time, etc) he picks up a behavior, and how accurate (i.e. how many mistakes he makes).

When I use either - I see the same results, the same level of problem solving, the same "I'm gonna figure this out", the same acquisition of final behavior using the clicker or verbal marker.

As long as I slice it up into pieces I can "explain" to him through shaping, he'll get it regardless of either marker, or switching up (like one day I might shape with the clicker because I remember to get it and then the next I might forget and use my verbal instead).

Trials with the clicker don't go any smoother, capture his focus any better, or make him any more enthusiastic about giving 100% then if I use voice.

So from the perspective of learning ability, attitude towards training, his body language, his focus, his progress and acquisition of behavior/slices/parts of a chain - I don't see any differences. 

If there's biological differences that create fractions of a second difference that could possibly add up - I'm hardly qualified to question that, but for me and Wally, whatever differences there are have not interfered or the lack of (with the clicker) sped up our efforts.





That'llDo said:


> Unless you produce speech without going through any speech processing, it should still be just a bit slower than clicking.  If you do, I know some scientists who would like to talk to you.


Speech? Oh, I mean, I communicate with him telepathically to make his brain think I spoke to him 

Wait, that would probably be even slower! 




That'llDo said:


> Just to muddy the water--you know, for fun--how positive are you about what Wally perceives as the reward marker? Any chance you twitch a muscle, smile just a little, or your eyes light up when he pleases you? If there is, than that could be a secondary conditioned stimulus, which may predict the conditioned stimulus, which predicts the unconditioned stimulus, and now you've got a clever boy who starts feeling the physiological reward before you even say good boy.


I'm sure all those things are possible. The only way I could say they aren't a factor is if he's working, but not looking at me.

Like with the example of shaping him to not be scared of paper towel rolls. He was looking at the roll, pawing at it frantically to make it be still so he could pick it up. Each time I "good boy-ed" him, he was looking at the roll and I used timing as if I had a clicker, so I marked as he was interacting with the roll, which means he wouldn't be look at me (since I didn't want to mark him looking at me, but doing stuff to the roll). Any of those possible (probably, probable) twitches/subconscious reactions in me wouldn't be picked up by him since, presumably, he'd have to be looking at me to see my eyes get just a bit wider or any subtle changes in my face. 

Now if we're working face to face, or on position where he looks at me (like fronts) then I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Of course, like you said, that muddies the water. Where does body signals, even subconsciously given ones by the handler, fit in?


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Nargle said:


> I'm not sure if this really applies to clickers, but I'm trying to communicate with Basil more and more through body language. For instance, in attempt to be able to calm Basil down on command, I've trained him to blink and relax his facial muscles, and the cue is blinking and relaxing my own facial muscles. Not sure why, but I do like the idea of being able to make as little noise as possible when training, and only relying on gestures to communicate. Would it be impossible to make a facial expression, like a smile, be a marker?


An "eye blink" from the handler can work well as a marker for behaviors / portions of OB excercises where eye contact is possible. 

ie. heeling, drop on recall, scent dicrimination (bringing the correct article), stand for exam, moving stand etc.

Who says ya can't take a clicker in the ring ! LOL


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

petpeeve said:


> An "eye blink" from the handler can work well as a marker for behaviors / portions of OB excercises where eye contact is possible.
> 
> ie. heeling, drop on recall, scent dicrimination (bringing the correct article), stand for exam, moving stand etc.
> 
> Who says ya can't take a clicker in the ring ! LOL


Hello Clever Hans!



LazyGRanch713 said:


> Can you believe I've never played beer pong?  I've led a sheltered life! My idea of living on the edge is waiting until 30 seconds before the library closes in order to check out 10 books XD


I don't even know what beer pong is...but if it's the old atari game with added drinking, I'm in! LOL


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

slightly off-topic but, another umm .. "device" I like is the clasp at the end of a 6' leash.

Set the dog up in a sit for off leash heeling etc, ... release the clasp with a deliberate ~click~, .. immediately reward with a scratch behind the ear, ... then READY ! ... LET'S GO !


**shameless grin**


----------



## KAroberts (Sep 22, 2010)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> According to a trainer I talked to, it's hard for a person, especially a beginner trainer to use the right tone and excitement in their voice every time. If you think you can, you don't need a clicker. Quite a few trainers I know just use a YES! to mark the correct behavior. I myself, just use YES! as well and it's worked fine.


I also tried both. I think that for the normal person who's not trained as a trainer is (no pun intended lol), the clicker is the best route.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Nargle said:


> I actually have tried using the clicker, I used a clicker for about a month straight, but for some reason he was always startled by the click, and would flinch and run away just a little. It seemed to completely throw him off and it was difficult to get back on track. I know it's just a matter of conditioning him to feel less frightened by the sound, but at the time it seemed more of a hassle than it was worth. I think part of the problem is that his anxiety medication for SA at the time seemed to make him a lot more jumpy than usual.
> 
> I'm not sure if this really applies to clickers, but I'm trying to communicate with Basil more and more through body language. For instance, in attempt to be able to calm Basil down on command, I've trained him to blink and relax his facial muscles, and the cue is blinking and relaxing my own facial muscles. Not sure why, but I do like the idea of being able to make as little noise as possible when training, and only relying on gestures to communicate. Would it be impossible to make a facial expression, like a smile, be a marker? FTR I have and currently am still working diligently to make "watch me" his default behavior so he keeps his eyes on me. My current marker, btw, is a soft "Good," generally spoken with the same tone every time. I tend to not speak at all aside from the marker when training, and I personally think I'm pretty good at controlling my body language.
> 
> I'm still soaking in the rest of the posts, so I'll reply to them later. :biggrin1:


I don't know if someone else has dealt with this, but I personally train to vocal _and_ visual cues because if the dog loses his hearing or sight as he gets old, and that's quite common, and you've only trained to one, you can end up with a dog that's frightened and lost. It happened to my mother's first dog, and it was awful. She had him trained entirely to hand signals, he developed cataracts and went blind, and he cried and cowered in fear until she put him to sleep. We both believe that it might have been a comfort to him to be able to follow verbal commands. (Then again, maybe he wouldn't have recovered from losing his sight either way. who can know?) After that, we both train to both cues just in case. 

My dog is a little shy of the click sound, too. I haven't had him long, so I'm waiting another month and I'll try again. Maybe a little more time to get comfortable will be all he needs. I do want to do formal obedience training with him, so we're going to have to figure something out.


----------



## CrazyDogLady (Dec 9, 2011)

Nargle said:


> I actually have tried using the clicker, I used a clicker for about a month straight, but for some reason he was always startled by the click, and would flinch and run away just a little. It seemed to completely throw him off and it was difficult to get back on track.


Some clickers make a softer sound than others. Maybe you could try a different one. I use this one with Mercy and it works great. 

Our trainer likes it a lot because the louder ones can really echo in the building where we have class and some of the dogs are scared by the sound.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

Amaryllis said:


> My dog is a little shy of the click sound, too. I haven't had him long, so I'm waiting another month and I'll try again. Maybe a little more time to get comfortable will be all he needs. I do want to do formal obedience training with him, so we're going to have to figure something out.


In the Rally class I take with Brody, they use marker words instead of the clicker. The instructor isn't against the clicker by any means, but she finds it easier to mark in the "real world" with a yes instead of a clicker because it's not guaranteed you're always going to have a clicker on you.

Brody is so strongly and deeply conditioned with the clicker so we continue to use the clicker in Rally. I can't watch clicker training videos on youtube without headphones because Brody thinks it's training time and won't stop bugging me until we go out and work. Forget about watching "It's Me or the Dog" because Victoria often uses a clicker and I can't put headphones on my TV, lol.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Everyone has posted why they like clicker training, or the benefits to it. I will explain why I don't use it.

I often have to work my dog in close quarters to other dogs, on scenes or during training. My dog must be in tune to MY voice or hand signals. If we all used clickers we wouldn't get very far. There is also the "size of the party" for a certain action. For example... a sit gets a good, or a yes followed by reward, but an indication gets a major "WHOOOO HOOO! SOOO BRAAVE!" (Good dog). 

If what you are doing in training is working, stick with it


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I imagine that the OP got his question answered, if he has had time to digest... Pls ask again, if we've confused the issue. Summarizing:
1. A clicker is a secondary reward (reinforcer) that marks desired behavior and promises a treat (primary reinforcer).
2. You can load a word .... If you taught your dog to look at you when you say his name, then you loaded that word. Turid Rugaas recommends loading a tongue click as a non-precise method of distracting a dog before he can be distracted by another dog, etc. Ian Dunbar uses the idea as a greatly modified form for providing corrections.
3. The problem with loading a word vs. a clicker is that everyone can make a consistent click, but not everyone can make a sound consistently.
4. When I learned about Calming Signals, I tried to teach my pup to Sit when I winked. I believe that he was too young to distinguish, based on my methods.
5. So, I'm glad Cracker mentioned Clever Hans... b/c my dog can now give behaviors based on a glance from me.
6. Bob Bailey and Sue Ailsby (sp?) are both worth Googling. They've taken clicker training to the next level, in that they train dogs how to learn! After training dogs with clickers, they take the dog to a point where the dog can learn many other patterns of behaviors very quickly.
7. Having said all this - I don't use Clicker Training either... b/c I don't have the timing (or coordination?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I start all new behaviors with a clicker. The clicker is always followed by food, though as the dog gets better at the behavior, I may ask for a little bit more duration before I click. I add a cue and once the dog understands the cue, I can start interspercing with a verbal marker (which I have taught by giving just before the click). At that point I will use the click for the next new behavior, or occasionally to sharpen up an old behavior. The very expensive $2 clicker gives me many benefits in early training. It's easier to really cc a sound than a word since it is always exactly the same, without emotion or inflection. We talk all the time, but mostly our dogs have learned they don't need to listen to our every word. Remember that clicker training is operant conditioning. But there is that element of Classical Conditioning (as Bob Bailey says "Pavlov is always on your shoulder") There have been some studies that suggest the click is processed through the primitive part of the brain (amygdala/hippocampus) and Jaak Panskepp told Karen Pryor that he think it is processed through the hippocampus which contains the SEEKING system, which makes us excited by trying new things. Roger Abrantes suggests that there are times when the mechanical sound is more useful (position type behaviors) and times when the voice is ore useful (relationship type behaviors) so might use a click to teach sit, but a verbal for recall as he considers verbal a semi-conditioned marker as it is also somewhat primary reinforcer, because it is coming from you.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Michiyo-Fir said:


> According to a trainer I talked to, it's hard for a person, especially a beginner trainer to use the right tone and excitement in their voice every time. If you think you can, you don't need a clicker. Quite a few trainers I know just use a YES! to mark the correct behavior. I myself, just use YES! as well and it's worked fine.
> 
> Why do I use YES!? Because carrying a clicker is too hard while holding a leash, treats, ball throwing device and plastic poop bags. And then Nia chewed the clicked and broke the button right off lol.


coil wrist bands are a wonderful thing. When Ray was a puppy, he used to steal clickers and walk around the house clicking himself.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Everyone has posted why they like clicker training, or the benefits to it. I will explain why I don't use it.
> 
> I often have to work my dog in close quarters to other dogs, on scenes or during training. My dog must be in tune to MY voice or hand signals. If we all used clickers we wouldn't get very far. There is also the "size of the party" for a certain action. For example... a sit gets a good, or a yes followed by reward, but an indication gets a major "WHOOOO HOOO! SOOO BRAAVE!" (Good dog).


On the first night of class, we do clicker timing games where all the students click me for opening my hand. My demo dog generally sleeps through that. I've never met a clicker savvy dog who was confused or distracted because someone else was clicking.


----------



## Roloni (Aug 5, 2011)

Maybe one day in the near future ..There will be an Iphone or Android App to help people train dogs..
You could send an eletrical signal to you dogs collar to remotely controll its behavior from your smart phone!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Cracker said:


> Hello Clever Hans!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know what beer pong is...but if it's the old atari game with added drinking, I'm in! LOL


I have a friend who won a game of bum darts with a bunch of drunk stock dog judges and trialers (you don't want to know)


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

RE: Electronic signal ... not sure about the app yet...but people do train their deaf dogs by using a buzzer in the collar


----------



## dogclickerfan (Mar 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Everyone has posted why they like clicker training, or the benefits to it. I will explain why I don't use it.
> 
> I often have to work my dog in close quarters to other dogs, on scenes or during training. My dog must be in tune to MY voice or hand signals. If we all used clickers we wouldn't get very far.


Even with clicker training, you can get your dog very tuned into your voice. Try whispering the cues (eg "sit" if your are teaching sit) rather then say it in your normal voice and you are bound to get your dog's attention because a clicker savvy dog will be paying attention hoping to find any opportunity to earn clicks.

There were a few people mentioning about the sound of clickers scaring their dogs. Thought it is worth mentioning that you could try wrapping the clicker with a cloth or clicking with the clicker in your pocket etc to muffle the sound of the click initially. That should be to much of a hassle. Alternatively you can begin by clicking while standing further away from your dog or even look up some of the iphone apps that produces a softer click sound (they are free on the app store though I must say I have not tried using them since my dogs are okay with the clicker sound.)


----------



## dogclickerfan (Mar 3, 2011)

dogclickerfan said:


> That should be to much of a hassle.


Sorry, I meant to say that shouldn't be too much of a hassle.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't like it, it seems like a bribe to me like a "please do this & I'll shove food down your glory hole" kind of like pleading with a child to behave in a restaurant by telling them they can order dessert, sorry , not for me.

I'm sorry but since when did punishment become an bad & horrible dirty thing?


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

... Around 1986 "Please Don't Shoot The Dog"


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

dogclickerfan said:


> Even with clicker training, you can get your dog very tuned into your voice. Try whispering the cues (eg "sit" if your are teaching sit) rather then say it in your normal voice and you are bound to get your dog's attention because a clicker savvy dog will be paying attention hoping to find any opportunity to earn clicks.


again, this is a reason I don't use it. I dont want the dog looking to me to earn a click. She needs to be out, working, many times this is out of my sight, and out of hearing range of a clicker and most voices. if in sight, out of hearing adequate voice commands, she will look occasionally to me, to be sure I havent changed directions or giving a hand signal. 

I think anything that works in most training situations should be utilized, and for basic ob, I see it being beneficial. The above is just the reason I choose not to use it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I don't like it, it seems like a bribe to me like a "please do this & I'll shove food down your glory hole" kind of like pleading with a child to behave in a restaurant by telling them they can order dessert, sorry , not for me.
> 
> I'm sorry but since when did punishment become an bad & horrible dirty thing?


Shrug. The above statement belies a total misunderstanding of clicker training. Huge difference between a bribe and a reinforcer. I trained and taught traditionally (with some positive punishment) for 20 years. Then another 15 with a clicker. It's not about punishment being a bad and horrible thing. And many R+ based trainers do use some sorts of punishment (another sign of not understanding it.) I'll go with what is most effective, thanks.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> again, this is a reason I don't use it. I dont want the dog looking to me to earn a click. She needs to be out, working, many times this is out of my sight, and out of hearing range of a clicker and most voices. if in sight, out of hearing adequate voice commands, she will look occasionally to me, to be sure I havent changed directions or giving a hand signal.
> 
> I think anything that works in most training situations should be utilized, and for basic ob, I see it being beneficial. The above is just the reason I choose not to use it.


I'm not sure what that has to do with clicker training. You DO understand that once a behavior is known (dog recognizes the cue) the clicker is generally phased out for that behavior? The click isn't a cue.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm not sure what that has to do with clicker training. You DO understand that once a behavior is known (dog recognizes the cue) the clicker is generally phased out for that behavior? The click isn't a cue.


Yes. You DO realize that most scent training in early stages involves a reward system where the dog is focused on the source and not the handler?

I have not said that clicker training is not useful. I stated why I don't chose to use it. I don't see a reason to use it to mark a sit, phase it out. Great with obedience, as is a word or what have you. Currently there are two dogs here going through training, one looks to me with every find, and the second stares at the source. The tug or ball is thrown right above the source when either a significant change or alert, depending on the stage here. IMO, to introduce the clicker here would distract dog, to look at me, for a reward. Guess which dog is more apt to leave the source, and takes longer to teach to return to it. Because of a clicker, no. Can it be properly trained, sure. I know of a detection trainer who starts her young dogs imprinting on odor and marking with a clicker. It works, yet she has to re direct the dog to the source later. Why add that?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> Yes. You DO realize that most scent training in early stages involves a reward system where the dog is focused on the source and not the handler?


I wouldn't be using a clicker for scent work. Our noses are so pitiful we really have no way of marking what the dog is "getting".


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

yet you can clearly read when a dog 'gets in' odor. You can tell fringe scent by watching the dog work in and out of either a source or on a trail. I cant smell the track, yet I can tell you where it is by watching a dog, when he goes off, or when he is 'crittering'. Even if we have to be the legs, say on the river, you note where a dog catches scent and work in and out of the odor to get the dog to the source. Though we cant smell it (hopefully), even after a few times of rewarding for imprinting, the rest is pretty much letting the dog figure it out, and precise reward timing, or you can get a very handler dependent dog. Its just what I find easier, though I have not tried the clicker for this use.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I'm with Pawz here - I love a clicker for certain types of training. Nosework isn't one of them. Neither is agility, except in the very beginning stages. Same for disc - only for very specific behaviors and only in their beginning stages. But if I want to capture or shape a particular behavior that lends itself well to clicker training, I find it to be a useful tool.

For example, I thought it would be fun to teach Kit to shake her head on command. But this isn't a behavior that happens often enough for me to capture it. So...wad up a piece of paper, stick it in her ear, and wait for her to shake her head to get it out. Click and treat at that exact moment. A few reps, and it's done. 

But some behaviors don't lend themselves well...
A friend was describing a recent training problem. She's trying to train a puppy for conformation shows and she needs to teach the puppy to stand absolutely still in a stacked position. IMO, this behavior isn't a great candidate for clicker training. It is the LACK of behavior here (i.e. holding absolutely still) that gets the reward. There is no clear end to the behavior, hence where do you click? My preference in this case would be to hold a food reward over the dogs head and slowly move it closer as the dog holds the stay. If the dog breaks the stay (even just moving a leg), the reward moves farther away. This indicates degrees of correctness, and the dog learns that its behavior dictates whether the reward is coming sooner or whether they'll have to wait longer.

Here's another example: 
In the beginning stages of agility, I needed to teach 2o2o. I started by training the dog to target a ceramic tile. 2 feet on the tile got c/t. Then I could move the tile to a place where the dog was on an angle (such as with the back feet on a stair) - c/t for 2 feet on the tile. Then I could move the tile to the end of the contact equipment - c/t for 2 feet on. And then finally fade the tile. I never clicked when the tile wasn't present, because the behavior had become ingrained by then. 

And another example of a behavior that doesn't lend itself well:
Kit and I recently started nosework. Our homework is to practice looking for food in one box among many identical boxes spread all over the floor. Here a clicker is inappropriate, because it's unclear what behavior to reward. Searching each box is exactly what I want, so technically, that should be rewarded. But only one box contains the hide, so maybe that's the place to c/t? But the box contains its own reward (food), so maybe there's no need. And I don't want the focus on me, so the whole concept of drawing the dog's focus away from the boxes is not great. When it doubt, better not to use the clicker. 

But again, invaluable tool when used properly!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

juliemule said:


> yet you can clearly read when a dog 'gets in' odor. You can tell fringe scent by watching the dog work in and out of either a source or on a trail. I cant smell the track, yet I can tell you where it is by watching a dog, when he goes off, or when he is 'crittering'. Even if we have to be the legs, say on the river, you note where a dog catches scent and work in and out of the odor to get the dog to the source. Though we cant smell it (hopefully), even after a few times of rewarding for imprinting, the rest is pretty much letting the dog figure it out, and precise reward timing, or you can get a very handler dependent dog. Its just what I find easier, though I have not tried the clicker for this use.


I am using a clicker to get an approximation of behavior. I think learning to scent is more an internal process than learning to sit. I would not use a clicker. Most of the people I know who use clickers don't use clickers on scent work. I'm sure my experience is not as extensive as yours in this matter. I've only done tracking, taught scent articles to several dogs and a little nosework for fun.


----------

