Just read a study on the professionals page comparing the clicker as a bridge with the use of the word good. It won't let me comment or ask questions so I thought I'd do that here.
Fascinating piece of research. In choosing a bridge sound for auditory bridges, we all know that it is important to choose a sound that stands out from the environment and is not used at any other time if possible in the presence of the animal. I think it is however a strong possibility that the stimulus "good" is likely to have been used before in the presence of these dogs, and is likely to be used NOT as a bridge around dogs in normal everyday life, by anyone handling them? It is therefore, to my mind not a great choice of vocal bridge unless articulated at a pitch and so short as to be very distinct from the way we use it in conversation. I suspect it is also likely that when trainers talk to their animals, unless they articulate every word clearly and distinctly, words cannot always be differentiated from each other. I defy any trainer no matter how good they are to be 100 percent disciplined and to not use "good" around their animals when not bridging!
The paper did not mention whether any measurements of the two sounds were made to see how they vary in terms of auditory perception. I wonder if there is a way to compare a mechanical and vocally made sound to choose a vocal sound that is as close to having the auditory characteristics of a click so as to compare sounds that have similar auditory qualities?
As it is likely that "good" has been used around the dogs, then unless the dogs have had no contact with humans at all and no prior attempts at training then I suspect we are not starting from the same place in introducing a new stimulus for comparison. I wonder if it might be worth using something like a high pitched "Tak!" to be sure of using a novel distinct sound. I also know people who use a vocal click which to my ears (but then we know that animals perceive sound differently) sounds just like a mechanical click. It isn't that hard to make and might have been a useful choice to compare mechanical versus vocally made sounds.
That said, I have seen a "good" sound used very effectively as a vocal bridge but I would not call it a "word" as such - rather a sound made by the trainer that met all the criteria for choice of a bridge based in the word good.
The paper also did not say to what extent the trainers involved in the experiment were prior users of clickers or prior users of vocal bridges. I think this could affect the outcome. Also, confirmation bias is a risk here if the trainers involved in the experiment were accomplished and committed to the use of clickers as it is possible that there could be subconcious differences in their timing of the delivery of the vocal bridge. I wonder if it might be necessary to use trainers with no prior experience of using bridges at all.
I also wonder if there is something about the difference between us making a physical movement - pressing the clicker - and something about making a vocal sound that could mean that there is going to be a difference in our delivery in terms of timing clarity. Be interesting to see what would happen if the press of a clicker type device could be used to initiate the delivery of a pre recorded vocal bridge. It could be that there is some difference in our ability to vocalise a sound compared to our ability to press a button.
That said, I don't need any convincing that saying "good" as we would in normal conversation to an animal is not a greeat choice of bridge. It doesn't meet the criteria for choice of a bridge, it lasts too long, and I am sure it's value gets watered down in indiscriminate use in chat to the animal and to other humans in its presence.
I think it would be good to see some research into whether there is a form of vocal bridge that we could use that meets the criteria for choice of an auditory bridge and that can be delivered hands free though!
