A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Valuable training articles posted by Victoria and other Positively members.

Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost

Post Reply
User avatar
minkee
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by minkee »

I have to admit that I haven't read this! But this quote makes it sound quite interesting:
"In the initial stage of training, as well as in the introduction of the second task within the current training process, verbal dogs were significantly slower to attain achievement level criteria than clicker dogs."
http://www.clickertraining.com/files/Wo ... FICACY.pdf
OnceInAWeil
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:20 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by OnceInAWeil »

Thanks, very interesting. We have a woman at the rescue who always says "PRAISE, NOT CLICKS," so I would love to show this to her... :lol:
ScarletSci
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by ScarletSci »

Thanks Minkee, that's a fascinating study. I've had a read through and it's an impressive piece of work - well controlled and clearly demonstrated. It's odd that this is the first study that we know of that directly compares the use of a verbal bridge word and a clicker, considering how long clickers have been used, and how many professionals say that a clicker is much better for teaching novel behaviours. This study indicates that they are right, the results are impressive.

It's convinced me to get on with clicker training with Pixie anyway :D
User avatar
minkee
Posts: 2034
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:58 am
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by minkee »

Yes, I often use a verbal marker because it's easier for me - this has encouraged me to start using the clicker instead (even though I find it fiddly!) Scout tries SO hard to figure out what it is that I want that I'm not sure it'll make a huge difference there, but for Breeze I think the clarity goes a long way.
ScarletSci
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by ScarletSci »

If I've read the study accurately (and I might not have, since I had to skim it pretty fast) then it's most useful in the early stages of training for a new behaviour. The dogs in the study certainly learned much faster in the initial stages than the dogs in the verbal condition. I found the study impressive because all of the dogs had to attain various stages in the training before moving on to the next, so they were able to analyse the rate of reinforcement for each stage.

In the early stages the clicker dogs (C) earned more reinforcements than the verbal dogs (V). Suggesting that C dogs learned the association faster. But once they averaged the amount of reinforcements needed over the whole study, C dogs needed an average of 83 primary reinforcements (food) while V dogs needed 126 primary reinforcements. I think that this means that a higher rate of reinforcement in the early stages meant the dogs "got it" much more quickly, meaning they produced the behaviour more reliably in the later stages of the training, needing less total reinforcements than the dogs in the verbal condition in order to solidify the behaviour.

The timing is a very impressive difference as well. The averages for learning the behaviour were:

C - 36 minutes
V - 59 minutes.

That's a huge difference in statistical terms. The statistical tests, given that the conditions were well matched and controlled, mean that the chances that this huge difference in time is down to error or chance, are so tiny that the results are very impressive.

I love science :D
ClareMarsh
Posts: 2008
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 5:11 am
Location: London, UK

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by ClareMarsh »

I only use a clicker in the early stages capturing a behaviour but having used marker words and a clicker I know the clicker is faster with Ted and it doesn't surprise me that this is typical across dogs.

The other super handy thing is the appearance of the clicker puts a clicker trained dog in training mode which although, as minkee says with Scout, you can end up with an overexcited dog doing every trick it knows (Ted does this too) I still think I catch the behaviour faster than if I just sat down with the treat pot.

I read the summary and was going to skim the rest but Scarletsci has saved me a job. Thanks :D
Proud owner of Ted and baby Ella
My blog about Ted http://tinkerwolf.com/
Ted's Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/Tinkerwolf
Ted's You Tube Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTedVids
ScarletSci
Posts: 463
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:44 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by ScarletSci »

:lol:

I may have got some of it wrong though... it's deadline week, I haven't had a lot of sleep, and I didn't have a good look at the numbers, I took what I posted from the discussion and conclusion.

I'd love to hear what others make of it! Quite often when you read through a study you can spot flaws in the methodology. The only thing I can see that might skew the results are the abilities of the trainers used.. but when she talked about pairing dogs as closely as possible, I assumed that meant one trainer would teach two matched dogs using each method... but I didn't look closely to check if that was the case, or if I have the wrong end of the stick. Even if trainers did vary in ability, given that each stage was broken down into small steps, and if we assume that the ability of the trainer was random for both groups, then the difference in timing is still statistically significant. There may be other flaws that I didn't pick up on though!
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by jacksdad »

OnceInAWeil wrote:Thanks, very interesting. We have a woman at the rescue who always says "PRAISE, NOT CLICKS," so I would love to show this to her... :lol:
I would start with asking why she says "praise, not clicks" first if you haven't already. there is a lot of misunderstanding floating around out there about clicker training.
OnceInAWeil
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:20 pm
Location: AZ, USA

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by OnceInAWeil »

jacksdad wrote:
OnceInAWeil wrote:Thanks, very interesting. We have a woman at the rescue who always says "PRAISE, NOT CLICKS," so I would love to show this to her... :lol:
I would start with asking why she says "praise, not clicks" first if you haven't already. there is a lot of misunderstanding floating around out there about clicker training.
Oh, I've tried to having a conversation with her about it. Her reasoning is that one of the dogs in the therapy dog class she went to wouldn't work if the clicker wasn't present, and the owners wished they'd never started using it. I explained that they probably weren't using the clicker correctly if that happened, but she wasn't having it. She even ignored a woman who told her that she works with children who cannot speak, and they use clickers to communicate with dogs. Now anytime anyone brings up clickers, she takes the chance to say that she doesn't believe in them and praise is all you need.
bendog
Posts: 2188
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:42 am

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by bendog »

Haven't found the original article yet but this is interesting

https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theot ... nce-golden

Suggestions that silence works better than click or verbal markers.
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by jacksdad »

bendog wrote:Haven't found the original article yet but this is interesting

https://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theot ... nce-golden

Suggestions that silence works better than click or verbal markers.

yes and no. reading that post it appears Patricia was a bit skeptical about that study in terms of it being that "cut and dry".

it also appears she didn't follow up as she indicated she would...at least not in the next couple months.

based on her blog post, it appears that the study (you would have to read it to be sure) indicates simple and maybe even mostly natural behaviors may not benefit from a clicker. simply targeting, simply things like sit, down etc. The "feeling" appears to be that the clicker just gets "in the way" for very simplistic/mostly natural behaviors/skills.

There did seem to be some skepticism regarding this translating over to more complex behaviors/skills/tricks.

Also per Patrica the study noticed that clicker dogs were more resistant to extinction.

I would strongly urge reading the actual study before drawing to many conclusions. If I can find it before someone else I will post a link. though odds are it won't be free, you will probably have to pony up about $32 to read it.
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by Nettle »

Haven't had time to read yet, but I would say that to many dogs, praise means nothing at all. They have to really like you before the way you feel about them motivates them.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: A study comparing clicker based and verbal reward markers.

Post by jacksdad »

Nettle wrote:Haven't had time to read yet, but I would say that to many dogs, praise means nothing at all. They have to really like you before the way you feel about them motivates them.
I can relate.
Post Reply