Hand signals vs. verbal directions

[Rush Fan]

I'll start with an update. My Mancer and I are doing absolutely fantastic. She is 17 months now, and sadly/joyously, she is very much becoming an adult in front of my eyes. I've been working with her on a few simple tricks, and I'm noticing that she seems to understand and respond to hand signals more readily than verbal instructions. Is this generally what you all have also experienced with most of your BC, or is it maybe more a personality trait, or might this perhaps change as she continues into adulthood?

[D'Elle]

I don't think it is a breed thing. My experience is that most dogs respond to hand signals readily. I do musical freestyle, and in that sport the handler often is required in competition not to use hand signals at all. Most of us know that if you want a dog to work on voice cues alone you either have to train a behavior with no hand cues at all from the start or else fade them out very early on. 

[GentleLake]

Nope. Not a breed thing and not at all unusual.

Dogs and their wild ancestors and relatives are mostly non-verbal communicators. Instead they communicate primarily through body language. So they're essentially hard-wired to be more responsive to non-verbal than verbal cues. As a species that communicates mostly verbally, humans often have a hard time understanding this, or at least they tend to miss dogs' constant attention to non-verbal signals. It's why they watch us pretty much constantly; whether we're aware of it or not, we're always talking with our movements and gestures. It's why dogs know when we're going to take them for a walk, or leave the house to go to work (and the difference between the two), or any number of different things without our ever having to say a word. They read all the subtle non-verbal cues.

So, given all this, it really isn't very surprising that dogs will often, perhaps even usually, respond more effectively to hand signals than to spoken cues. 

 

 

[Rush Fan]

Thanks to you both for the info. It's a little bit of a surprise to me, only because I've trained a couple of dogs previously using verbal communication. I've never really taught tricks or anything but my dogs have always responded nicely and have been very obedient and well behaved as far as basic commands and behavior/restraint. I did a little searching and found a study that claims its results show that females typically respond better to hand signals while males tend to respond equally to verbal or hand directions. (My dogs have always been female,  so not sure what to make of this.) But based on what I've seen from Mancer so far and what you both are saying, I'll surely lean heavily towards hand directions when training her. I'm a little worried though,  about avoiding ambiguity as I try to teach new commands. I've noticed there is some literature available with "universal" hand signals for dog training. Im wondering if there are different versions of this, and if so, whether either of you use or recommend a specific version? 

And as always, all others please feel free to chime in as well!

[GentleLake]

That they do so well with a communication form that's alien to them (i.e. verbal) says more about how truly adaptable dogs really are.

"Universal" and signals are only universal in the sense that they'd be common to most people using them. It doesn't mean that they've any more readable to the dog than others, any more than any particular word or whistle cue is. They learn whatever you teach them, and there's no reason two (or more) dogs in the same household can't be taught different cues for the same behavior, whether those cues are verbal, gestural or whistles.  A good example is of shepherds who have different dogs trained to different whistles so that the dogs can work at the same time but be directed independently to control larger flocks.

So just because most obedience instructors use a fairly universal set of cues, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that you can't substitute "jelly" for "come" or "tickle" for "lie down." All that matters is what works for you and that you're consistent when training it. Lack of consistency is what leads to ambiguity, so decide ahead of time what cue(s) you  want to teach and stick with them.

As an aside, learning both verbal and hand signals is the same dog learning 2 different cues for the same thing, and many people will attest that their dogs understand different words meaning the same thing. My dogs understand that "come," here" and even "cmon" meant the same thing. The only real difference is I may be more serious when I say "come" than the others and that it really mean "come promptly," while the others are more casual and may not require top speed. Ditto for "lie down" and "drop." Drop is the one that's to be performed PDQ.

 

[Rush Fan]

Oh yes, I'm aware of, and agree with all that you are saying here. I've thought about using silly words as commands when training dogs in the past, but the trouble with that is I'm afraid I might forget or get confused as to which word I associated with which command. 

While I get that there is no universal set of hand signals that dogs will just automatically understand, my concern is being able to have hand signals for different commands that are different enough from each other that they don't confuse the dog as to what I'm asking her to do. That's what I meant when I mentioned i was worried about ambiguity. I'm afraid that at some point I won't be able to find a new hand signal for a new trick or command that is different enough from other signals I'm already using for other things. That is where I'm thinking that looking at a set of commands others have used successfully (and refined to avoid confusion to the dog) could be very helpful to me. 

Obviously based on your response,  I can surmise that you haven't ever referenced one of these recommended sets of hand signals, but I do appreciate your feedback nonetheless. 

[Sue R]

It doesn't hurt to teach any dog hand signals along with verbal. Megan, who began going deaf at age 5 and was completely deaf by 7, and Celt, who is losing hearing in his mid-teens, both benefit from having hand signals for some commands. And both seem to have "selective seeing" as well as they could have "selective hearing" when it suits them! ;)

[D'Elle]

I agree with Sue that it's helpful to train both hand and verbal cues. Most dogs start losing some hearing when they get past a certain point in aging, so the hand signals are very valuable. Verbal cues are equally valuable in some circumstances where the dog may not be able to see your hands clearly, or may be far enough away that you need to holler the cue. The concern of running out of clear hand signals is valid. I use a lot of words that I simply choose for moves I train in freestyle, often in order for the cue not to sound like another cue.  They are also trained to come to a whistle I carry with me when we go off leash walking. That sound carries far better than my voice does.

You may find a "universal" set of hand cues useful, but if you start teaching your dog a whole bunch of different behaviors (and with a border collie I and many others find that irresistible) you will run out anyway. You will never run out of words and sounds you can make. 

[urge to herd]

If you google 'training deaf dogs' you'll find lots of suggestions for hand signals. For keeping them straight for yourself,  make flash cards from 4x6 index cards. Use a thick point black marker, and drill. On one side put the command, on the other side put a picture of a hand in that position.  Practice, practice, practice. Get a friend to help you.

Good luck!

Ruth & GIbbs

[Rush Fan]

12 hours ago, D'Elle said:

I agree with Sue that it's helpful to train both hand and verbal cues. Most dogs start losing some hearing when they get past a certain point in aging, so the hand signals are very valuable. Verbal cues are equally valuable in some circumstances where the dog may not be able to see your hands clearly, or may be far enough away that you need to holler the cue. The concern of running out of clear hand signals is valid. I use a lot of words that I simply choose for moves I train in freestyle, often in order for the cue not to sound like another cue.  They are also trained to come to a whistle I carry with me when we go off leash walking. That sound carries far better than my voice does.

You may find a "universal" set of hand cues useful, but if you start teaching your dog a whole bunch of different behaviors (and with a border collie I and many others find that irresistible) you will run out anyway. You will never run out of words and sounds you can make. 

Thanks D'Elle. I pretty much already use both so I guess I'll keep on doing that. Agree that each will probably make more sense in different situations. The only somewhat advanced thing I've taught her so far is to "spin left" and "spin right" which is where I noticed she understood hand cues much better than verbal. I typically say the words and make the gesture simultaneously. When I use only the verbal cue she has no idea what I want, whereas when I use only the hand cue she gets it right away. I also love the whistle idea but I'm reluctant to use one because a) I take her to a local bark park and don't want to upset the other dogs/owners, and b) I would very likely lose or misplace it at some point as I'm terrible with such things. Thanks very much for the great info though. 

[Rush Fan]

9 hours ago, urge to herd said:

If you google 'training deaf dogs' you'll find lots of suggestions for hand signals. For keeping them straight for yourself,  make flash cards from 4x6 index cards. Use a thick point black marker, and drill. On one side put the command, on the other side put a picture of a hand in that position.  Practice, practice, practice. Get a friend to help you.

Good luck!

Ruth & GIbbs

"Training deaf dogs". A great idea I hadn't thought of. Thanks so much!

[starry777]

With all the dog's I've trained in my life, they always picked up the hand signals more readily than the verbals, but could learn verbals without too much of a struggle. My Corgi however is different. It is really a lot of work to put a command on a verbal. I think it might have something to do with the fact she is more tuned into me than any dog I've had before. When we're working she's always watching me, oblivious to anything else. And mainly what she's noticing about me is my body language and not what is coming out of my mouth xD

So I never bothered to teach her too many verbals. When/if I get a BC, though, I want it to know lots of verbals because I want to be able to do distance work with the dog or just otherwise have it able to do stuff when it isn't next to me, looking at me.

My Corgi is mostly just good for close-range work although I can send her around a cone or out to retrieve a dumbbell or something. But as soon as she can she's looking at me again, hehe. Silly girl.