Clicker Expo 2011 (Chicago): Kathy Sdao- What a Cue Can Do, Part 1

The fabulous Sara and Layla demonstrate "breathe."

Believe it or not, Sara actually taught Layla to take a deep breath when cued. 

Kathy’s session on developing cueing skills changed my life. Okay, maybe that’s a little dramatic, but it was possibly the best session I attended all weekend. I have to admit, I suck at getting behaviors on cue, so I knew going into it that this would be full of great information. Even so, I was not expecting to feel so devastated about my subpar skills. In a panic, I begged my way into her lab on cueing skills so I could see it in action. I'm glad I did!

In my last entry, we talked about how to get behaviors. That is the first job of a trainer, and despite my feelings to the contrary, Kathy said it is the most difficult part. Personally, I think getting the behavior itself is far more fun than the tedious process of getting the behavior on cue. This is probably why Maisy has virtually nothing on cue (at least not reliably). That’s not her fault, of course- as Kathy pointed out, the reliability of the dog reflects the reliability of the trainer.

Despite the not-fun-ness of it all, it’s important to develop reliable cues so that you can get the behavior you want, when you want it, and also so you aren’t getting the behavior when you don't want it. (This is also called "stimulus control.") Who hasn’t seen the clicker dog offering behaviors willy-nilly? It’s kind of exhausting of watch, and having one of those dogs myself, it is also kind of frustrating. Still, I created this monster, so I can’t get mad at her. It’s time to fix (um, okay, get) those cues!

Let’s start with some information on cues in general. Cues don’t make the dog do the behavior; astute readers will remember that in Kathy’s talk on shaping, she said consequences drive behavior. Those consequences- the reinforcers- provide the motivation for the dog to perform the behavior. Cues simply provide the clarity of “now would be a good time to try that behavior.”

Throughout her talk, Kathy compared the idea of cues to a green traffic light. If you’re sitting in a car at a green light, you don’t go because the light makes you, you go because you want to, and the green light is a cue that gives you permission. What’s more, you can’t go at a green light if you don’t know how to drive, so you always have to get the behavior first, and then attach the cue.

This is different from how people used to train. In the past, trainers would say a word like sit and then make the dog do it by physically manipulating or luring him into position. Kathy calls these words “commands,” which she distinguishes from “cues.” Commands carry an implicit threat: do it or I’ll make you. Cues are simply an opportunity; if the dog doesn't do the behavior, he won't be forced. However, he needs to do do it if he wants to earn reinforcement, and assuming the dog has been adequately reinforced in the past, he should be excited for that opportunity.

It is this last point that absolutely fascinated me. If cues are an opportunity to earn reinforcement, then they should be pretty awesome things, right? Trained well, a cue should be like a release word. They tell the dog, you no longer have to wait, you can do that behavior now, and when you do, I’ll click and treat you.

The cues therefore become reinforcing in and of themselves because they become what’s called a tertiary reinforcer. Primary reinforcers are things that the dog likes inherently. Dogs don’t need to be taught to like hot dogs, they just do. Secondary reinforcers are things that predict a primary reinforcer. Clicks or marker words tell the dog a piece of hot dog is coming through the process of classical conditioning. The tertiary reinforcer predicts the secondary reinforcer which predicts the primary reinforcer. The cue predicts a click which predicts a piece of hot dog. Cool, huh?

Anyone who wants their dog to do complex behaviors, or a chain of behaviors, will recognize the value in having a cue act as a reinforcer. Agility or obedience dogs often need to do a series of behaviors with no primary (food) reinforcer. Being able to reinforce a behavior simply by giving the cue for the next exercise or obstacle will help sustain motivation and ensure that the dog continues to perform over the long-term.

However, there is a catch- in order for a cue to act as a reinforcer, that cue must always predict a good thing. If you mix in corrections, the cue is then sometimes associated with unpleasant things and no longer acts as a reinforcer as a result. Therefore, Kathy said that training positively is not about fairness to the dog- it’s about giving yourself more tools. Losing a reinforcer by using punishment is a big price to pay.

Whew! Who knew there was so much to say about cues? But there’s so much that Kathy talked about them for 90 minutes, and then did two 90 minute labs about them! I only attended one of those labs, but in my next post, I’ll share her cue tips with you, as well as information about how to add a cue to a behavior. In the meantime, I can't wait to hear what you guys think. Have you ever used a cue as a reinforcer, or does this concept just blow your mind? Let me know!

Training Tuesday: Trick 1- Prairie Dog!

One of my goals for the year is to teach Maisy twelve tricks. Today, I bring you the first one: Prairie Dog!

My husband chose the cue word, which is good, because I would probably have chosen something boring like “beg.” Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I do appreciate fun cues for fun behaviors, and I’m horrible at coming up with them. The hand signal is my right hand held palm up and moved towards Maisy/away from my body.

I have to confess, I taught this trick with luring. I tend to prefer shaping behaviors, but luring just made so much sense for this one. I was careful to do it right, and only used the lure half a dozen times or so before moving to air cookies. I did air cookies for a session or two (so maybe 10-15 reps- I didn’t write it down, and should have), then switched to the hand signal.

Once she was reliably sitting up for the hand signal, I started adding the verbal cue. Since I was curious how long it would take her to figure it out, I kept good records on this. In her book The Thinking Dog, Gail Fisher says that it takes 25 to 50 reps to attach a verbal cue to a behavior. Initially, I thought Maisy was going to do well, because performed the behavior following the verbal cue only on the 23rd time. Unfortunately, that must have been a fluke, because she didn’t do it again until the 57th time!

Here’s the video of trials 56 to 65:


Out of those ten times, she only got it on the verbal three times. (I didn’t reward the offered behavior between trials 7 and 8 because Gail says that once you name a behavior, you should only reinforce the dog when you’ve asked for the behavior. This is supposed to help get behaviors under stimulus control.) During the next ten times, Maisy got it on the verbal cue 9 out of 10 times- and that was in a room I hadn’t trained in at all! Therefore, I’m going to call this behavior done!

Suzanne Clothier Seminar: Where Clicker Trainers Go Wrong

It came as no surprise that Suzanne considers herself a humane trainer. I knew that by reading her book, by the fact that she calls her method “relationship centered,” and by the observation that the positive training community has rallied around her. So, I was completely unprepared for what she said next:

“All positive training is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard.”

Come again? Aren’t you for training our dogs in positive ways? What do you mean, it’s “stupid”? Needless to say, this statement really set me reeling. But you know what? She had some valid criticisms, and I think it’s important that as clicker trainers, we consider what she says, and find ways to improve our training as a result. Again, my understanding of her criticisms are my own, based on stray comments she made. This entry cannot be considered a complete commentary, and I only hope that it’s accurate. That said, in reviewing my notes, I found four ways we often go wrong:

Clicker Trainers are Too Cerebral
As I mentioned previously, Suzanne believes that consequences are useful in training dogs. Although I disagree with some of the consequences she believes are acceptable, I do concede that they can have a place in a thoughtful training program, and I’ve since found some ways to improve my training with Maisy as the result of using them.

The problem is, clicker trainers sometimes shy away from consequences entirely because we’re thinking too much. I know I fell into this category! When I was considering a consequence, I would think about which of the operant conditioning quadrants it fell in. If it fell in the “wrong” quadrant, I wouldn’t do it. Instead, Suzanne encouraged us to look at our dogs, and to decide if the consequence is humane or not. As long as we aren’t hurting or scaring our dogs, we’re probably okay.Instead of thinking about our actions based on some chart, we’re better off thinking about our dog.

Clicker Dogs Have No Impulse Control
Okay, this is a bit of an over-exaggeration of what she said, so don’t go around quoting this verbatim. What Suzanne actually said is that when she sees a dog throwing behaviors, she knows two things: it was clicker trained, and it has low impulse control. This does not mean that all clicker dogs struggle with impulse control, but it can be a by-product of the training method if we don’t get adequate stimulus control over the behaviors we teach our dog, and if we don’t take the time to teach our dogs how to relax.

I love having a dog who wants to work, but sometimes I think I’ve created a monster because I haven’t worked that much on teaching her how to just be. Sometimes, I don’t use the clicker at all because it is creates too much arousal. She loves it so much that she loses control over herself.

Clicker Trainers Micromanage Their Dogs With Cookies
There are two sub-points here. First, clicker trainers tend to rely too much on management, and don’t spend enough time teaching their dogs to be responsible for themselves. (I wrote about this previously in this entry.)

Second, clicker trainers tend to rely on cookies far too much. Suzanne is not against cookies, she just thinks we need branch out. She said that what we really need to do is harness intrinsic motivation. We need to teach our dog to work for other things. Life rewards such as getting to go for a walk or using play as a reinforcer fits here, but Suzanne is big on using praise and the social relationship as a reinforcer, too. Cookies are great, but they’re the icing on the cake of social relationships.

Clicker Trainers Rely on “Recipes” Too Much
Finally, Suzanne was critical of clicker training because it can result in the handler treating the dog like a computer: we train them based on stimulus and response, or input and output. We would find it insulting to be treated this way, so why wouldn’t our dogs? Instead, we need to see the whole animal, and tailor our plans to their needs and preferences. Even counter conditioning will fail, she said, if we don’t keep the dog safe. Training recipes might be a nice starting point, but we need to go beyond them.


As I mentioned, I know I fall in the “think too much” category. I also recognize that my use of the clicker could have contributed to Maisy’s impulse control problems, because I'm just not that good at getting things under stimulus control. So far as micromanaging with cookies… well, guilty again. I do rely a lot on management, and I’m just learning how to use things other than food as a reinforcer. I think I am safe on the last point; but I think my strength lies in being able to evaluate various “recipes” and tweak them so that they work to both Maisy’s strengths and my own.

So, fellow clicker trainers, do you recognize yourself in any of these descriptions? If so, what are you going to do to improve your training?

And now for something different

I train with Maisy almost every day. She's a busy dog who needs mental exercise to stay sane. Usually I train performance-related behaviors, but this week, I decided to do something different: the Go Click Challenge. This week's challenge was to teach your dog to push a ball with her nose.



The problem with this challenge was that one of Maisy's natural behaviors is to push her ball with her nose. It's incredibly adorable, but not something we ever taught her to do. It's just how she brings the ball back after we throw it. So, in order to make it a challenge for her, I worked on putting the behavior on cue (I had hoped for stimulus control, but didn't quite get there).

Once that was done, I worked on generalizing the behavior to other things. First with other balls (my husband was amazed when he saw her pushing the exercise ball with her nose because she is- well, was- incredibly scared of it), then we worked on cylindrical things like batteries and pop cans. Finally, we worked on boxes of all sizes.

I did need to do some shaping for the not-ball items. The large box was the hardest one to teach, and required the most steps during shaping. I did cheat once: we got stuck on the step where she touched the box with her nose. I couldn't get her to do any more force. To get around that, I showed her what I wanted by pushing the box with my hand, and then clicking and treating. On the very next trial, she pushed the box with her nose! This isn't the first time that she's learned through observation, but I gather that it isn't very common.

Anyway, this was very fun to do, and while I probably won't do every Go Click Challenge, I'll definitely be doing more!