# Clicker vs. verbal marker, don't understand why clicker is better.



## msminnamouse (Jul 14, 2008)

If you use the same verbal marker consistently, quickly, and with the correct timing, why wouldn't it be just as effective and produce just as quick learning results as a clicker?


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

A clicker is a more unique noise. I have both will all my dogs (might want to work on something with out a clicker handy) but I notice all the dogs respond faster and get more excited by the clicker.

There have been some interesting theories as to why this might be. All seem to centre around the fact that in our daily speech we say 'yes' and other sounds that people use as VM. But pretty much nothing sounds like a clicker, but a clicker. Thus the clicker causing a better response.

I also like clickers with people new to training positively. There is no emotion in a clicker, some people's yes's change depending on how excited or desperate they become


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Karen Pryor talks about this in her book Reaching the Animal Mind. I can't recall the jargon off the top of my head but basically the click transmits through the brain faster/more effectively because it is such a unique, conditioned sound.

Also, the most important thing in working with my own dog is that the click doesn't communicate my emotions. Kaki will shut down if I so much as sigh so keeping my emotions out of training is critical for our success.


----------



## lrosen8750 (Aug 15, 2011)

This is really interesting since I just started using a verbal marker and not a clicker. I will re-evaluate in a few days if I'm getting nowhere-

Just a quick question- when my doggie pulls I stop and when she comes back to me I give the treat and verbal marker. Do you think she will learn pull just to get the treat at some point. A trainer who does not agree with this training mentioned this to me today and has me thinking-
Any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Lauren


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

lrosen8750 said:


> This is really interesting since I just started using a verbal marker and not a clicker. I will re-evaluate in a few days if I'm getting nowhere-
> 
> Just a quick question- when my doggie pulls I stop and when she comes back to me I give the treat and verbal marker. Do you think she will learn pull just to get the treat at some point. A trainer who does not agree with this training mentioned this to me today and has me thinking-
> Any thoughts on this?
> ...


While I agree with clicker training, it is true that you can teach your dog a behavior chain where the first step to get the treat is to hit the end of the leash. I would A) help the dog and click before she pulls or B) As for more behavior than just coming back to get the click. So just wait for her to take a step with you before you click. This is NOT a drawback of the process. But because dogs learn so fast with the clicker, you have to think about what they are learning.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

msminnamouse said:


> If you use the same verbal marker consistently, quickly, and with the correct timing, why wouldn't it be just as effective and produce just as quick learning results as a clicker?


I think consistency is the biggest factor here, whether you choose to use some form of mechanical device or use your voice.

IMPO, for verbals ... intonation, inflection, phonetics etc all play a major role in choice of words and their relative effectiveness. I prefer to use "good" as a verbal marker over ones such as "yes" because I find "good" to be much crisper, and more blunt ... phonetically speaking. "Yes" tends to have a possibility of the ssss being dragged on, and the yyy part can easily be exagerated as well if the handler is not conscious and aware. "Good" seems to fit the bill for me, provided I'm careful not to stretch it into goooooood. Just keep it short, blunt, and monotone, with a complete absence of inflection. Also, one should try their best to leave exclamation points off any verbal, even for those lightbulb / breakthrough moments. That's the hard part, and that's where clickers seem to hold the upper hand.

With clickers ... the two-part clicking pattern can also vary slightly from one instance to another, (clickclick vs click ~ click, if that makes sense) so the handler should put some effort into using it with the same consistency as you would with any verbal.


Keep in mind that both methods (mechanical and/or verbal) should be regarded as extreme precision tools for marking behaviours, and be treated as such.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I know that there are those that say the sound of the clicker is better but I am not convinced. I DO use a clicker but I have also used the word "yes" as a marker with great success. The truth is, that I am not always training, I am not always standing around with a clicker in my hand but I do have my voice. I do use that as a "reward" or "marker" when the dogs offer a behavior I want repeated. I think dogs are smarter then some people give them credit for. I do however think that sometimes peoples voice CAN be confusing because they don't always use the same word or sound. Yeah vs. YES or Good or Uh Huh, or something like that. I just use a sharp YES every time. I can't imagine that dogs cannot understand that. Mine have

Also, I agree with petpeeve. Not all clickers are the same and do make different sounds, also how fast or how hard the clicker is pushed can change the sound slightly. If the marker has to be the same to influence the dogs thought process then that has to be considered as well. 

Like I said, I am in the boat that believes dogs can handle a little variation but less is best. Consistency is the key to success in training. IMO


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

well my mom trained all her dogs VERY succefully using a verbal marker and never a clicker, she chose a unique verbal sound for each dog, Perky for example was "Ta", her dogs got just as exited for her veral marker as mine got for the clicker..exept my dogs got confused because they all had the same marker(they dont have to be in the same room to hear a click), where as my moms never got confused because they each had a unique marker to them. my mom also had the advantage of a spare hand and never loosing the marker. I have several clickers laying around somewhere...I dont know or care where they are, I use only verbal markers now.


----------



## Lindbert (Dec 12, 2010)

I find my timing is better with a clicker vs. verbal marker. For whatever reason, the link between my brain and my hand seems to run quicker than the link between my brain to my mouth. I'm always late with verbal markers but I have rather excellent timing with a clicker.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Miss Bugs said:


> well my mom trained all her dogs VERY succefully using a verbal marker and never a clicker, she chose a unique verbal sound for each dog, Perky for example was "Ta", her dogs got just as exited for her veral marker as mine got for the clicker..exept my dogs got confused because they all had the same marker(they dont have to be in the same room to hear a click), where as my moms never got confused because they each had a unique marker to them. my mom also had the advantage of a spare hand and never loosing the marker. I have several clickers laying around somewhere...I dont know or care where they are, I use only verbal markers now.



Good point about multiple dogs. I however have difficulty getting my dogs names right have the time. Remember who gets which marker word would be an extra challenge. ha ha


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

> find my timing is better with a clicker vs. verbal marker. For whatever reason, the link between my brain and my hand seems to run quicker than the link between my brain to my mouth. I'm always late with verbal markers but I have rather excellent timing with a clicker.


and see the biggest issue I always had with a clicker was that I tended to "over click" my hands would work faster then my brain and I would end up clicking in anticipation of the behaviour, using a verbal marker keeps my brain and mark on the same page lol



> Good point about multiple dogs. I however have difficulty getting my dogs names right have the time. Remember who gets which marker word would be an extra challenge. ha ha


lol I dont even try to call my dogs by name half the time, they are "1,2,3,4,5...yup all accounted for!!" the clicker with multiple dogs was not a HUGE deal for specific training sessions, but I could never ever walk around with a clicker and capture behaviours that way, because if one dog was doing something bad, and I clicked for a different dog that was doing something I wanted, the bad dog would start repeating the bad behaviour in hopes of eventually getting a treat lol . now when I am working on tricks with my dogs I do have to be careful to avoid my moms dogs cues or I will suddenly have one of her dogs waiting exitedly in front of me lol


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

A clicker is simply a training tool. And as with all tools, there is a way to use it properly. You can train fine without a clicker, and you can train lousy with one. 

The idea that the sound of a clicker has a unique path inside a dog's brain is a nice speculation, but it's impossible to prove in any way. IMO, I think that for a dog, if any sense has more unique pathways associated with it, I would say it is more likely to be associated with scents rather than sounds. 

As the OP said, if you are consistent with your marker and time things properly, you can train quite well without a clicker.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Lindbert said:


> I find my timing is better with a clicker vs. verbal marker. For whatever reason, the link between my brain and my hand seems to run quicker than the link between my brain to my mouth. I'm always late with verbal markers but I have rather excellent timing with a clicker.


 This one made me laugh because I am the exact opposite. One day I decided to teach my dog a trick using the clicker. After 5 minutes he had learned the trick and my daughter pointed out to me that I forgot to click. I am "clicker challenged" in the worst way. So, for me, I must use a verbal marker.

I use "good" and my trainer has tried endlessly to get me to change it but I just can't get any other word to come out of my mouth fast and consistently enough. "Good" is a tricky word to use because, especially in class, everyone says "good dog" all the time. Cherokee generalizes everything so, every time he hears anyone say good, he thinks they are talking to him and it means he has done something to earn a reward. He can be pretty pesky sometimes LOL.


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

Inga said:


> I think dogs are smarter then some people give them credit for.


Absolutely. I don't feel like my use of the clicker(and I have come to love it so) devalues a dog's intelligence in any way. I toe the anthropomorphism line on a daily basis because of all the intelligent, intuitive dogs that have been in my life. The clicker means we're all on the same page; come to front means come to front for both parties involved. I will always use one. However, most of the volunteers in my classes at the shelter have preferred verbal markers over clickers. They have been no less successful in teaching with the exception of the few volunteers that couldn't get timing right to save their lives. 

"Research in neurophysiology has identified the kinds of stimuli-- bright lights, sudden sharp sounds-- that reach the amygdala first, before reaching the cortex or thinking part of the brain. The click is that kind of stimulus. Other research, on conditioned fear responses in humans, shows that these also are established via the amygdala, and are characterized by a pattern of very rapid learning, often on a singly trial, long-term retention and a big surge of concomitant emotions.... Barbara and I hypothesize that the clicker is a conditioned 'joy' stimulus that is acquired and recognized through those same primitive pathways, which would help explain why it is so very different from, say, a human word, in it effect"
_-The Neurophysiology of Clicker Training by Karen Pryor_(I got this excerpt from When Pigs Fly! Training Success With Impossible Dogs by Jane Killion


----------



## zdonBGSU (May 7, 2011)

the size of the difference between clicker and verbal marker is not something one person can "test both and see". Because when you train there are so many other variables that changes from session to session, person to person that affects how dogs learn. But when all else is equal, clicker is better than verbal marker. 

one explanation is that a verbal marker such as "yes" or "good" are more similar to our every day words. while a clicker is a much more distinct sound. The dog will not hear anything like a clicker in any other situation, but he will hear the word yes, or good or words similar to that very often. the strength of the association is weaker whenever the stimuli does not elicit an expected outcome. the clicker sound is unique and its a sound that will ALWAYS elicit the expected outcome, so the strength of the association is stronger. also various other reasons already stated: inconsistency in reproduction, timing, etc. 

so, its easy to understand why clicker is better. but to observe an actual effect is harder especially in the real world when so many other things will affect the outcome.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

Poly said:


> A clicker is simply a training tool. And as with all tools, there is a way to use it properly. You can train fine without a clicker, and you can train lousy with one.
> 
> The idea that the sound of a clicker has a unique path inside a dog's brain is a nice speculation, but it's impossible to prove in any way. IMO, I think that for a dog, if any sense has more unique pathways associated with it, I would say it is more likely to be associated with scents rather than sounds.
> 
> As the OP said, if you are consistent with your marker and time things properly, you can train quite well without a clicker.


Actually its not impossible to test.. just very expensive. So at this time no one has done a study on it.

I have seen a difference I think because my marker word is 'yes' and I say yes in general conversation. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I think Dekka is one of the smartest dogs out there . You know how you hear something and you get a instant response? Its stronger if its not a common sound. I think with the clicker its novel enough the dog doesn't have to think click YAY they just feel click YAY. Where as with 'yes' they have to processes that it means them. I do train with a verbal marker so I know it works... I hope I am explaining this well lol...

The other issue is if you are training a fast dog doing something specific (like say weaves) the word yes takes longer to say. (and many people say yess to make it more unique) that span of that word might encompass a few behaviours and the dog is left figuring out which one got the 'yes'. I was working with Dekka years ago and she was trying to weave watching me, a behaviour from our obed training, I had to click the instant she glanced away from me to check where the pole was to encourage her to watch the poles not me. That is one spot where a verbal would have been less effective.

The clicker is a more precise tool. But if you are just teaching basic sit down come stay etc you don't likely need a more precise tool.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Miss Bugs said:


> and see the biggest issue I always had with a clicker was that I tended to "over click" my hands would work faster then my brain and I would end up clicking in anticipation of the behaviour, using a verbal marker keeps my brain and mark on the same page lol


I have an itchy clicker finger, too. And because of that I find that the precision of the clicker is a bit counterproductive for me personally. Not a fault with the clicker, certainly, but since I'm the one using it and since I am not training for anything competitive or professional, I have come to find that for me I prefer a verbal marker.


----------



## msminnamouse (Jul 14, 2008)

> The idea that the sound of a clicker has a unique path inside a dog's brain is a nice speculation, but it's impossible to prove in any way.


Until they prove this, I think I'll stick with a Good! verbal marker. I like the personal connection that it's my own praise that signifies to the dog that they did well. I also think it leads to dogs accepting praise as a sufficient reward for good behavior when I phase out giving a treat every time. I also like that it's "organic", if you will and that I always have it on me, ready to use. I can't forget it at home, etc. I know you can say "click" but I don't think it's quite the same.

I think clickers still do have their applications, even for me despite what I said. For instance, with feral dogs or very fearful dogs that aren't as connected to me on a personal level as other dogs who care about my praise or approval.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

LOL good wouldn't work for me. I tell my dogs they are good all the time.

Of course depending on breed YMMV. My JRTs are quite convinced they are the awesomesauce so me saying 'good' whilst nice isn't terribly rewarding. (I had one JRT that would work for praise, sadly for her that was due to it be a no punishment marker) The whippets like praise and will work for it if there is nothing else going on. My son's BC though LIVES to be told what to do (its kinda creepy... lol I am such a terrier person)


----------



## msminnamouse (Jul 14, 2008)

But if you're telling them that they're good when they're being good, I think that they'd be smart enough to recognize the work and associate it with good behavior, doing what they asked and so they'll understand when they did something correctly.

It's speculation, I'm not a dog so I can't know for sure but I like to think they're this intelligent.


----------



## zdonBGSU (May 7, 2011)

msminnamouse said:


> Until they prove this, I think I'll stick with a Good! verbal marker. I like the personal connection that it's my own praise that signifies to the dog that they did well. I also think it leads to dogs accepting praise as a sufficient reward for good behavior when I phase out giving a treat every time. I also like that it's "organic", if you will and that I always have it on me, ready to use. I can't forget it at home, etc. I know you can say "click" but I don't think it's quite the same.
> 
> I think clickers still do have their applications, even for me despite what I said. For instance, with feral dogs or very fearful dogs that aren't as connected to me on a personal level as other dogs who care about my praise or approval.


The conditioned stimulus (verbal marker or clicker) is not the reward. 

the unique and consistency of the sound in a clicker theoretically creates stronger associations, for reasons I stated earlier in the thread.

to put it simply. dogs will hear words like "yes" and "good" in other situations and not receive the reward, whenever an outcome does not follow a stimulus, it weakens the association. With a clicker, it is a sound that will almost ALWAYS precede a reward, I mean when else will the dog hear clicker sounds? Also, there are more sounds that are similar to "yes" and "good" that the dog hear all the time, this also weakens the association. So, if dogs react to clicker sounds better, its not that clicker sound has some apriori unique quality, its because it has stronger associations to the outcome.


----------



## Dekka (Mar 20, 2010)

msminnamouse said:


> But if you're telling them that they're good when they're being good, I think that they'd be smart enough to recognize the work and associate it with good behavior, doing what they asked and so they'll understand when they did something correctly.
> 
> It's speculation, I'm not a dog so I can't know for sure but I like to think they're this intelligent.


No I mean they sit on my lap and I snuggle them and tell them how fabulous they are lol. But really my JRTs couldn't give a flying fig for verbal praise. They also couldn't care less (in general) if you yell at them. I don't think its a matter of intelligence but a matter of motivation. Good is said when not paired with rewards so they don't care. I am sure they like me snuggling and talking to them, at least they come back for more so they must. The response to the clicker though is noticeable, even compared to our verbal marker 'yes'. As was mentioned so eloquently its the association. 

Actually it could be an intelligence thing. The JRTs are smart enough to know good is not a predictor of anything great but a clicker is a sure fire indicator of amazing things and fun games.


----------



## dogclickerfan (Mar 3, 2011)

msminnamouse said:


> Until they prove this, I think I'll stick with a Good! verbal marker. I like the personal connection that it's my own praise that signifies to the dog that they did well. I also think it leads to dogs accepting praise as a sufficient reward for good behavior when I phase out giving a treat every time. I also like that it's "organic", if you will and that I always have it on me, ready to use. I can't forget it at home, etc. I know you can say "click" but I don't think it's quite the same.
> 
> I think clickers still do have their applications, even for me despite what I said. For instance, with feral dogs or very fearful dogs that aren't as connected to me on a personal level as other dogs who care about my praise or approval.


It is important to remember that whether you choose to use a click or verbal marker, it is nothing more than a conditioned (or secondary) reinforcer ie it draws its strength as a reinforcer from being paired with the primary reinforcer (the treat). Thus each time you click or say your verbal marker, you should follow with the treat else the conditioned reinforcer will over time lose its effectiveness. Thus if you wish to use "good" for times when you phase out treats, it might be better to use another verbal marker for times when you intend to reward with treats. 

Personally, I use verbal markers too because I don't carry my clicker with me all the time. However I do find one advantage of using clickers for teaching new behaviors and that is when I am trying to attach a verbal cue to the behavior. When attaching a verbal cue, we normally start with cueing only when the dog has almost completed the behavior and slowly progess towards cueing even before a behavior is performed. Thus, at times, the interval of time between the saying of the verbal cue and the verbal marker is so close that it becomes clearer for the dog if you say the verbal cue and than click rather then say the verbal cue and immediately follow with the verbal marker without a pause.

Also if you wish to use a verbal marker, it is better to choose a word that is very distinctive, short, sharp and precise eg "yes." This is because markers are for marking behaviors and thus timing and precision are important. The word "good", because of the "oo" which drags the pronunciation, takes a little longer to pronouce and thus may fall short if you are marking very precise actions in training where precision counts.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

zdonBGSU said:


> The conditioned stimulus (verbal marker or clicker) is not the reward.
> 
> the unique and consistency of the sound in a clicker theoretically creates stronger associations, for reasons I stated earlier in the thread.
> 
> to put it simply. dogs will hear words like "yes" and "good" in other situations and not receive the reward, whenever an outcome does not follow a stimulus, it weakens the association. With a clicker, it is a sound that will almost ALWAYS precede a reward, I mean when else will the dog hear clicker sounds? Also, there are more sounds that are similar to "yes" and "good" that the dog hear all the time, this also weakens the association. So, if dogs react to clicker sounds better, its not that clicker sound has some apriori unique quality, its because it has stronger associations to the outcome.


Dr. Roger Abrantes refers to the voice marker as "semi-conditioned" because the element of your voice can be a primary reinforcer. He suggests that a mechanical marker is more powerful in "muscle memory" situations and a voice marker may be more powerful in relationship based situations. I think there may be some merit to that. In most early training situations, I use a clicker. In shaping I use a clicker. I think it is more unique, requires less interpretation than my voice. And allows me to be more precise. If people aren't comfortable with clicker for some reason or don't like it, and prefer to use a voice marker, I have no doubt that if they do it well, the dog will learn. Whether it is as effective or not? Well, I think you would have to actually do a study with a control group to tell that. I bet one's been done, but I'm too lazy to go looking this very moment.


----------

