What Questions Do You Have About Clicker Training?

[gila]

Using a clicker will also allow you to immediately reward your dog for good behavior. A click is instantaneous – faster than verbal praises or commands – allowing you to give rewards more accurately. You are more likely to miss the moment when your dog is doing exactly the right thing you are training him to do. And being able to pinpoint the exact behavior you want to reward would mean that your dog can understand and learn faster.

Not if the person operating the clicker has shit timing I usually only use a clicker or voice marker when teaching something new. Doesn't seem to make any difference to my dog which one I use.

[Paul Bright]

Does this mean you have to carry the clicker everywhere you go with your dog? What if you forget?

How do you mark your dog for doing a behaviour you like if you don't have a clicker on your hand?

I only use clicker when doing complex skills with my JS.

She also has marker words which is 'Good' and 'Yes'. This works for us because I rarely say "Good" or "Yes" to her

I personally don't think a dog will just recognise their own clicker. Some might but I don't think it really matters. Just because I have a lot of clickers at home and Emmy will get excited with any clicker I bring out. You can be in the same room with me and I use your clicker on Emmy, and she will still work for me. She won't work for the clicker you're using (even if it's hers) and that's because she will work for me regardless what equipment I use

The clicker is just a tool used to mark the desired behaviour you're wanting. At the end of the day, you'll still get great results using your voice or marker words like you've got with 'good' and 'yes', the clicker can help with timing it more precisly.

Interesting what you've said about recognising their own clicker. If you look at 10 different sites/books, you'll get a bunch of different answers from them. Looks like it might not just be the clicker in and of itself, but the clicker and owner combined, creating a powerful training tool.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Does this mean you have to carry the clicker everywhere you go with your dog? What if you forget?

How do you mark your dog for doing a behaviour you like if you don't have a clicker on your hand?

I only use clicker when doing complex skills with my JS.

She also has marker words which is 'Good' and 'Yes'. This works for us because I rarely say "Good" or "Yes" to her

I personally don't think a dog will just recognise their own clicker. Some might but I don't think it really matters. Just because I have a lot of clickers at home and Emmy will get excited with any clicker I bring out. You can be in the same room with me and I use your clicker on Emmy, and she will still work for me. She won't work for the clicker you're using (even if it's hers) and that's because she will work for me regardless what equipment I use

The clicker is just a tool used to mark the desired behaviour you're wanting. At the end of the day, you'll still get great results using your voice or marker words like you've got with 'good' and 'yes', the clicker can help with timing it more precisly.

Interesting what you've said about recognising their own clicker. If you look at 10 different sites/books, you'll get a bunch of different answers from them. Looks like it might not just be the clicker in and of itself, but the clicker and owner combined, creating a powerful training tool.

i think a great trainer has consistency in their message and unfortunately you don't seem to have such consistency.

i do have an issue with people hanging out a shingle as an expert with no training and often making serious training situations worse.

i am at a loss as to what you are contributing to clicker or any other training with your mixed messages

in fact it can be quite dangerous if you give out the wrong information

Edited November 24, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[gila]

The clicker is just a tool used to mark the desired behaviour you're wanting. At the end of the day, you'll still get great results using your voice or marker words like you've got with 'good' and 'yes', the clicker can help with timing it more precisly.

Interesting what you've said about recognising their own clicker. If you look at 10 different sites/books, you'll get a bunch of different answers from them. Looks like it might not just be the clicker in and of itself, but the clicker and owner combined, creating a powerful training tool.

How?

It still comes down to the person holding the clicker or using the verbal marker. I have good timing and I can say my verbal marker as soon as the behaviour I want happens. But I've seen people with shit timing using a clicker and a few seconds will lapse between the behaviour and the click.

[Vickie]

Hi Paul,

It seems you have gotten peoples backs up a liitle.

I think I can see why. I have read a few of your posts now & honestly they do come across as quite arrogant. However After reading your responses in this thread, I can see that is not your intention.

It's great that you want to help people, just try to remember that while you already have more knowledge & experience than some, there are heaps of very experienced & successful trainers here.

Perhaps a Starting a discussion rather than a offer of advice might be better received?

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

Dogs have good hearing.

Gary Wilkes says that clicker training in a group is fine, dogs can tell which one will get them their treat.

Susan Garrett says they're best for precision training, and not so good if you're trying to teach a "send" which is go and keep going... you can, but it's harder. The main time she uses one is when teaching a dog how to fall off (jump off) the dog walk.

I used one to teach "tail worky" and "roll over" and "lie here while I clip your nails". In fact for the last one, I used the nail clipper as the clicker. But actually trimming nails - still squeezed and hurt. So fail. Got me a finger sander instead.

At least Paul Bright is being a tiny bit more upfront about where he's at than some of the other dog forums he's spammed - where he kept posting in very old threads and not reading anyone else's responses. Bright? or Dim?

[Kavik]

As many people here have trained more sophisticated behaviours using shaping than the basic obedience you claim, I agree that starting a thread saying you will answer all questions on clicker training does seem rather arrogant

Discussions on clicker training are well received though

[JulesP]

I think I understand. Paul has discovered clicker training and thinks its great. He has trained his dog to do a few things and has done some research in it. Now he wants to spread the gospel. I've seen this sooo many times over the years mainly with natural horsemanship.

[ravenau1]

I have been clicker training my cats over the last few weeks (because my puppy doesn't come home with us for 2 weeks yet), and we are loving it

[Sheridan]

I don't have enough hands for clicker training. Need a third one. Besides, Mini took no notice of the clicker.

[Dory the Doted One]

Hi!

My purpose in asking the question re: Clicker Training was largely because I wanted to do something different. I've trained quite a few dogs, and even competed in obedience. I always thought that using a Clicker was adding a step that I would have to remove later, so why bother with it in the first place.

My goals with Dory are very different. I'm not interested in competing with her, just having some fun. And while generally I have always used training as an opportunity to have a fun game with my dogs while learning at the same time, I thought adding a clicker with Dory would just be a good way to exercise my grey matter and learn a new (old) thing.

I have no expectation that teaching Dory tricks would actually fix any other problems with are having with her. Far from it. But I thought it might reinforce and strengthen a bond of obedience on some level. Especially as I am physically limited at the moment.

She has been having loads of fun and seems a happier dog since I started. And I'm enjoying using the clicker, it's quite novel.

To be perfectly frank, I have been tragically slack with Dory's training. Because it had never been a problem before. I did not get her as a puppy and considering some of her 'quirks', when I first got her she has come quite a long way. So we have been doing stuff, just not 'obedience' stuff.

In some of the behaviours we have taught her she will work without the presence of food. And I would definately agree that in all others where we are having problems, treats have not been scaled correctly (in otherwords...I've been Slack). But I'm confident with a bit more consistancy on my part we will get her there. And I guess I felt Clicker Training might help me a little bit with some motivation in that direction.

Dory is the first dog I have owned in a long time where there was no intention to show or compete in any way. Strictly companion. So haven't felt a pressing need or deadline to get her 100% obedient every time. And as stated before, she fit in very nicely with my original expectations and requirements. She was actually very responsive when I first got her, but I guess familiarity has bred a little contempt and she knows that sometimes she can wrangle it. (ie...I was Slack). My expectations of her have now changed, and so we are now changing what we do.

I was drawn to the clicker because I've never done it before and I was curious to work with it and see how I really felt about it.

I also like how it can quite clearly and distinctly mark a behaviour in a very quick and snappy fashion. When working with Dory, I have to be a lot quicker than I'm accustomed to. She jumps from one thing to another, gets typically terrier fixated and then it is a rapid declining spiral of frustration and sloppy timing as she gets more confused. (I think we must be twins. )

I have noticed the clicker keeps us both focussed. And my timing has improved because I'm paying more attention to what she is doing.

As to ulterior motives of some people in this thread. But I'm having fun reading.

Truth be told. Dory's issues come to one thing....Slack Owner.

Now Slack Owner, is trying to find something that will work for both of us at the present moment. I can't walk too far, especially with a dog on a lead. Teaching tricks I felt, was a cool way to still work on behaviours without too much exertion for me.

I felt I had to do something to pull her back into line ASAP, and this was a compromise till I'm back to 100%.

[corvus]

I wonder if the clicker is "just a marker". At the NDTF conference earlier in the year, Steven Lindsay spoke very briefly at the very end about clicker training. He suggested clicker training is not just operant conditioning because it has an element of prediction error to it. Because the sound is quick and sharp, it is a bit of a surprise every time. The surprise increases excitement and serves as a more potent reward than just the following food treat alone. I use verbal markers and have chosen sharp, quick sounds ("ping" and "tick") because I started using "yes" and found it slowed me down and dampened the message. I get a lot more excitement when I use a sharp sound. My younger dog is the only one I use the clicker with because someone once suggested to me that it might be confusing for both dogs to be trained with the same sound. That made sense to me, so "ping" came into use.

[poodlefan]

The thing I find with group classes and clicker training is that most pet dog owners aren't interested in "gadgets" won't use the clicker outside a formal training environment and have difficulty juggling a leash, treats and clicker (step 1 is get them to put treats and clicker in the same hand)

So teaching them to use a marker word is more likely to be something they'll continue to do outside training. Its hard enough getting people to reward their dogs half the time - marking just adds to the challenge.

One test of just how much timing will differ is, with your class armed with clickers, toss a ball and catch it, asking them to mark the catch - you'll get a range of marks!!

Corvus I think its not that the clicker sound is a "surprise". I think its a sound unique to training and that a charged clicker in use brings anticipation of reward. A clicker trained dog is hardly likely to be suprised by a sound its heard thousands of times.

Dory, my note of caution in your other thread was there because I'd not have liked you to think that there's something magical about clicker training as opposed to other methods of marking and rewarding. I can see you don't suffer from that illusion. We all get the dogs we train one way or another

Edited November 24, 2010 by poodlefan

[wuffles]

I wonder if the clicker is "just a marker". At the NDTF conference earlier in the year, Steven Lindsay spoke very briefly at the very end about clicker training. He suggested clicker training is not just operant conditioning because it has an element of prediction error to it. Because the sound is quick and sharp, it is a bit of a surprise every time. The surprise increases excitement and serves as a more potent reward than just the following food treat alone. I use verbal markers and have chosen sharp, quick sounds ("ping" and "tick") because I started using "yes" and found it slowed me down and dampened the message. I get a lot more excitement when I use a sharp sound. My younger dog is the only one I use the clicker with because someone once suggested to me that it might be confusing for both dogs to be trained with the same sound. That made sense to me, so "ping" came into use.

I think I have to agree with this. Both my dogs have been trained using both a clicker and a marker word (yes). I get much more focussed excitement out of them using the clicker in general (unless I am using a really excited, high pitched tone, see my comments below). As soon as they hear the click, their ears go up, their attention is immediately on me waiting for a treat. Using the marker word, I get a similar response but toned down a bit. Some may argue that the clicker is better charged than my word but I can assure you they both know what "yes" means

Also, different tones of my marker word get different reactions... if I am marking a behaviour and I want to encourage calmness (for example a stay) I use a softer, more even tone. If I want to encourage enthusiasm (for example during heeling) I use an excited, higher pitched tone. This is one advantage for me with voice rather than the clicker. I used the clicker often in the first few months of training them, but use the word 90% of the time now as it's more convenient.

[corvus]

Corvus I think its not that the clicker sound is a "surprise". I think its a sound unique to training and that a charged clicker in use brings anticipation of reward. A clicker trained dog is hardly likely to be suprised by a sound its heard thousands of times.

Sorry, I didn't explain that very well.... or at all. Lindsay was talking about a "surprise" in a prediction error context, which refers to when the dog predicts one thing will happen and what does happen is better than expected, hence a positive prediction error - surprise. If I understood him correctly, the sound of the clicker is sharp enough that it causes a tiny little jolt in the dog, and because they are conditioned to know this means food, they get jolt plus "oh boy, food", which equals a surprise. I am possibly off base on this, but my interpretation is that if a dog comes to expect a click, the very nature of the sound still serves to give them a little jolt, so the prediction error is always positive. Lindsay doesn't talk about this in his books, though. There is more than that going on as far as I'm concerned, seeing as according to Jaak Panksepp we are also engaging the SEEK system when we marker train. That comes with the potential for a lot of anticipation and dopamine, but if Lindsay's idea that the clicker is a tiny little bit startling because of the sharp sound is correct, then we're potentially looking at a double spike of dopamine, one before and one after. One would guess a bigger startle may well overcome or dampen some of the positive reinforcement. Then again, I don't know very much about neurochemistry.

It's a whole lot of speculation, but speculation worth considering IMO. I'm not quite ready to say that clickers are categorically more effective than verbal markers. It has been my experience, but my use of clickers and verbal markers has not been anything like the same. My older dog still perks up noticeably if I click in his vicinity even though he never gets rewards after a click anymore and hasn't for over a year. He is beautifully animated for a sharp verbal marker and I don't think in the scheme of things it makes a great deal of difference, but I still wonder if a click is just a marker.

Incidentally, I take my clicker and treats everywhere, but that doesn't mean I always have the clicker around my wrist or the treats handy. Thank goodness for verbal markers and secondary reinforcers! I agree that in the scheme of things a marker word is extremely valuable and for many is going to be much more readily and reliably available than a clicker. I think everyone needs a marker word, but not everyone needs a clicker.

[corvus]

Also, different tones of my marker word get different reactions... if I am marking a behaviour and I want to encourage calmness (for example a stay) I use a softer, more even tone. If I want to encourage enthusiasm (for example during heeling) I use an excited, higher pitched tone. This is one advantage for me with voice rather than the clicker. I used the clicker often in the first few months of training them, but use the word 90% of the time now as it's more convenient.

Good point. I don't use a clicker for calm behaviours period, because it gets my dog excited, so it's kind of like shooting myself in the foot. I tried using a slow, drawn-out marker instead "good", but ultimately dropped that one as well. Erik knows a marker when he hears one, apparently. Convenient when I accidentally give him the wrong one, but not so good when we want calm. I reward calm behaviour pretty much silently, now. Often not even with eye contact. Erik is a training nut and seems to often be looking for some clue that we are training so he can get excited about it. I swear sometimes he gets excited about just looking for a clue that we might be training! Kivi I could mark calm behaviours with, though. Different dog.

[Aidan3]

My opinion, FWIW, is that for a clicker to convey an advantage over a verbal bridge the handler must develop a level of mechanical skill - which is certainly not difficult but requires instruction and a lot of practise. I don't expect it to be any better than a verbal bridge for people starting out in my classes, although it usually ends up being better fairly soon and precision is quite important in what I do.

It's a bit like playing sport, you need the ball in your hands a lot. Any spare chance you have to throw, catch, kick, hit or whatever you need to do most in your chosen sport should be spent doing that. So, although I almost never use a clicker with my own dogs, I like clients to get the clicker in their hand and pay attention to what they are doing at every chance they get - even though probably 85% of what they do could be done without the clicker. It builds the skill pretty quickly and they don't fumble or mis-click or click the wrong thing. This is important because if we're going to increase the criteria efficiently, they need to be able to click at the right moment.

I don't doubt Lindsay in his hypothesis because he is a responsible authority who doesn't just spout nonsense without evidence; whatever the reason, clickers are just more noticeable or more meaningful. That's not to say that they are magical, just about anything with similar acoustic properties works just as well, but there is something about those acoustic properties that cuts through and gets the job done.

I suppose you could say there were parallels with e-collars vs check chains. Some people have exemplary timing with a check chain but they will never be as good as they could be with an e-collar. The check chain is just too "analogue".