> >What do you think about the notion that the click
> > itself affects the pleasure center of the brain?
> I'm not sure the click is a
> necessary component, except in the way it affects the behavior of
the
> trainer :)
Amygdala: the Neurophysiology of Clicker Training
By Karen Pryor on 08/01/2001
Filed in - Karen's Letters - Training Theory
About a year ago I gave a talk to the Association of Pet Dog Trainers
about advances in clicker training, in which I discussed the possible
relationship between clicking and the amygdala, a structure in the
limbic system or oldest part of the brain. Many people have emailed
me to find out more, so I thought I would give you a recap and an
update.
German scientist Barbara Schoening is a clicker trainer and a
veterinary neurophysiologist in private practice. It was she who drew
my attention to the relationship between clicker training and
research on stimuli and the limbic system. The paper that Barbara
Schoening and I are working on is an hypothesis paper only, putting
forth our concept.
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 single trial, long-term retention, and a big surge of
concommitant emotions. The New York Times Sunday Magazine ran a cover
story surveying this research in 1999.
We clicker trainers see similar patterns of very rapid learning, long
retention, and emotional surges, albeit positive emotions rather than
fear. 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 its effect.
If this is true, another contributing factor to the extraordinary
rapidity with which the clicker and clicked behavior can be acquired
might be that the click is processed by the CNS much faster than any
word can be. Even in the most highly-trained animal or verbal person,
the word must be recognized, and interpreted, before it can 'work;'
and the effect of the word may be confounded by accompanying
emotional signals, speaker identification clues, and other such built-
in information.
That is the hypothesis, based on various previously unconnected
bodies of research; it is not data or evidence. Dr. Schoening and I
have both put the hypothesis forward at scientific meetings and at
lay meetings like APDT and IMATA (Int. Marine Animal Trainers Assoc.)
in order a) to see if others find this interesting and likely and b)
to possibly stimulate others into doing some research. Both lay and
scientific audiences have reacted with interest and curiosity.
We have not yet submitted a joint paper for publication, mostly
because we are both very busy. When we do, from submittal to
publication in a scientific journal takes, usually, at least a year,
though things are a bit faster on the internet these days. Actual
research would come next. Poking around in the brain is not what I
know how to do; Barbara might. I would say that hard data is five
years away, after someone gets interested enough, in some lab, to
start looking at the question.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of simpler pieces of field work that
various people are undertaking. For example, some clicker instructors
have done informal comparisons between using the voice "Yes" as a
marker, in some pet owner classes, vs. the clicker in others.
Empirically, the outcome is usually that the class curriculum is
covered in much less time, with a higher degree of success, in the
clicker class. The difference is apparent because it leaves the
teacher with two or three weeks at the end of a six or eight week
course and nothing left in the teaching plan! (People usually go on
to tricks, introduce agility, or move into their intermediate
curriculum, to fill up the weeks students have paid for.)
It would be interesting, though not necessarily easy, to analyze such
comparative situations, if only to show that the difference is real
(if it is.) What causes the difference is another question: the dogs
perhaps learn faster and more accurately, but the people also get
feedback from the clicker. It increases their attentiveness to the
dog, improves their timing, and for all we know, triggers nice
feelings in their amygdalas.
There many additional possible neurological and biochemical side
effects of clicking. Here's a comment from Pat Robards, clicker
trainer and editor of Dogtalk Magazine in Australia:
Any time a dog receives a treat, it causes the animal's other
autonomic system to kick in: the parasympathetic nervous system.
(PNS) This section of the nervous system is sometimes called the
vegetative function of the organism (processing foods, digestion,
etc.).
Humans experience episodes in which the PNS is active as nice warm
feelings, relaxation, contentment. Anytime that a previously neutral
stimulus, like a clicker, or a kind word, gets paired with one of
these parasympathetic reactions, through Classical (Respondent
conditioning) the clicker acquires the ability to produce the same
pleasant effects. This is why treats (and soon the clicker) can be
used to calm a dog, make him less fearful, cause the whole training
process to be a happy experience. One of the reasons clicker training
is at the cutting edge! I use it to mark Calming Signals for a
fearful dog thanks to Karen Pryor.
So, yes, clicker is better. Why? Hmm. We are just beginning to know
what questions to ask.
Piet
hoof issues are man made; not genetic
Warboel
