# No Reward Markers



## LibertyME (Jan 6, 2007)

I used the phrase 'uh-oh' ... i.e. if Trace releases his retrieve before I tell him to give....
Too many NRM are a cue to me that I have likely lumped too much together ....time to break it up and/or work to solidify the parts...


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> How do people use no reward markers and at what stage of training/under what circumstances? Do you say a particular word or phrase?


Mine is "try again". Like LM said if its used a lot it's a good indication that I've progressed too quickly. I use it most when I'm shaping a behavior - usually a trick. It's just a bit of incentive to keep offering things - keep trying - on the right track...

For things like stays or retrieves where there's a clear right and wrong I will say "uh-uh" - and then reset the exercise. If it's a stay that is broken I reset the position, break off of the behavior and then ask for it again and reward the success...

Erica


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Sorry - clarification on the definition here. That's sort of the opposite of click and treat? Not a correction but a way of marking an incorrect behavior?

Is it the kind of thing you would avoid in the early learning stages?


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

Thanks for the feedback. it really helps to see that you both use NRM like uh oh and try again sparingly, and then back up and retrain components if you find yourselves using many of them. I have never used No Reward Markers before, but we have a new class/ instructor who is stressing them. So far, if there is a broken stay or Tango comes back in after a go out and sit, I just completely ignore it- no rewards but no marker- and start over rewarding success at an earlier stage and building back up. It is reassuring to know you use the NRM. This is Tally's class - Rally III Advanced, and we are learning lots of new ideas and techniques so far. Jumping and articles are new for us.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry - clarification on the definition here. That's sort of the opposite of click and treat? Not a correction but a way of marking an incorrect behavior?
> 
> Is it the kind of thing you would avoid in the early learning stages?


 Tally uses a marker for "keep trying, getting warmer" as well as the click/or the word "yes" for "you got it right"& treat. He knows "good job" for keep doing what you're doing. . .The No Reward Marker is for getting colder/wrong answer. The instructor says to keep the tone very neutral and offer it entirely as information, not punishment. It's new to me, and I am a little reluctant.


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> Tally uses a marker for "keep trying, getting warmer" as well as the click/or the word "yes" for "you got it right"& treat. He knows "good job" for keep doing what you're doing. . .The No Reward Marker is for getting colder/wrong answer. The instructor says to keep the tone very neutral and offer it entirely as information, not punishment. It's new to me, and I am a little reluctant.


The purely positive camp doesn't seem to like NRMs. I've used them with all my dogs to some degree. My thinking is this...if I want to be sure that my dogs understand something they need to make mistakes. Mistakes = learning...in the purely postitive world you hear a lot of things like "corrections are bad, they make a dog stop thinking and trying behavior" - in the out of position/choke chain correction sense (read carefully I'm not bashing the method)....but in the end - isn't witholding a cookie and ignoring a behavior a NRM in and of itself? I believe correction has gotten a bad rep in the PP world. Correction by my definition is to fix - corrections need not be physical punishment - or any punishment for that matter...they are a fix...

The other thing is that there is a big difference between a NRM and paying attention to bad behavior (in the PP sense should be ignored)...

I hope that makes sense, I'm running on 3 hours of sleep.

Erica


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

Ljilly28 said:


> The No Reward Marker is for getting colder/wrong answer. The instructor says to keep the tone very neutral and offer it entirely as information, not punishment. It's new to me, and I am a little reluctant.


Did you guys ever play hot/cold as kids? Think of the NRM as "getting colder" "FREEZING!" vs only hearing "warm", "warmer", "HOT" and not getting any cold information...The cold information (NRM) was a really quick way for the other person to tell you that your offered behaviors were getting less correct - or had dropped below a threshold of what was reinforceable. Without the NRMs you wouldn't have known when you stopped doing something right and when you started to be incorrect.

Here's something you can do to feel better about NRMs - find a unsuspecting friend (clicker savvy one if you've got it). You have a clicker - this is a shaping game, but instead of silence you are going to use NRMs - you pick something you want them to do, click when they are right (you can pay them with M&Ms) and when they are offering incorrect behaviors (but still actively problem-solving) break out the NRMs - pay attention to how often you're using them - if you have a really high rate of NRMs your criteria is too high.

Erica


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

In agility, we use "silly boy" or "ooops, try again" if he heads for or takes the wrong obstacle. It's said in a neutral tone, sometimes in a positive tone, just informational, not a correction. Sometimes I'll say to him, "get back here silly boy and try again", which is a pretty strong statement. Doesn't phase him a bit, he knows he made a wrong choice, that's all. And remember, I have an incredibly soft (unconfident) dog. But he LOVES agility so he'll take the NRMs in stride.
Obedience is a different thing altogether and his lack of confidence can be a real problem there. In that case, just withholding praise is enough for him to realize he's made a mistake. I don't say anything at all if he's wrong when he's just learning something because he will shut down. He will give me that hang dog look and come back to me with his head down. You'd think I beat him. But once I'm CERTAIN he knows something, if he does it wrong, then he gets an "uh uh" if he messes up because at that point he did it wrong because he was distracted and needs to focus on me.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

I sort of naturally have the urge to use an NRM when I'm training Comet. I say "nope" in a light, neutral tone, do everything else as if I were ignoring, and try again. He's incredibly "soft," not in the sense that he's unconfident about obstacles or people or trying new things, but in the sense that harsh voices or being wrong just shuts him down and gives him the hangdog look.

He seems to tolerate "nope" really well, and I think it makes lots of sense to mark an incorrect behavior for him if it doesn't shut down his enthusiasm for playing.

I did it at agility training a few weeks ago when he went around a jump instead of over, and the lady I'm working with suggested I not correct at all and simply ignore and reset. So it was interesting to me that it looked like a correction from the outside. I'm not sure she's against NRMs in general, but it was a very early phase of doing jumps, and she said it was important to avoid corrections entirely because enthusiasm is such an important part of speed on the course.

I've noticed that she does mark it when her dogs make a mistake, saying "uh-oh" in a fairly high voice and looking away from them. I'd almost be worried that the dogs would confuse the tone of voice of the "uh-oh" with praise.

Just thinking out loud here. I think LJilly brought up a really important discussion, so I hope more voices sound off on it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Interesting, you could be describing the Tito monster here. He's never unconfident about obstacles, people, or other dogs. I've never seen him timid, shy, or afraid of anything. In fact, he's very outgoing and confident.
BUT if he thinks he made a wrong decision, he just falls apart. Exactly as you said, that hang dog look, and he comes slinking back to me as if he's just committed a major crime and is about to be beaten to within an inch of his life. 
Wonder why????






tippykayak said:


> He's incredibly "soft," not in the sense that he's unconfident about obstacles or people or trying new things, but in the sense that harsh voices or being wrong just shuts him down and gives him the hangdog look.
> 
> He seems to tolerate "nope" really well, and I think it makes lots of sense to mark an incorrect behavior for him if it doesn't shut down his enthusiasm for playing.
> 
> .


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> Interesting, you could be describing the Tito monster here. He's never unconfident about obstacles, people, or other dogs. I've never seen him timid, shy, or afraid of anything. In fact, he's very outgoing and confident.
> BUT if he thinks he made a wrong decision, he just falls apart. Exactly as you said, that hang dog look, and he comes slinking back to me as if he's just committed a major crime and is about to be beaten to within an inch of his life.
> Wonder why????


I think that's what we get with this breed. They're bred with this incredible instinct for people pleasing, so when they get the sense they haven't, it's very upsetting to them. And when you train a dog to look to you and you develop that rapport and communication, the dog feels really crappy when he feels it break. It's like having your world suddenly become wobbly and upside down.


----------



## sammydog (Aug 23, 2008)

Interesting topic. I use "ooops" said in a positive tone for agility. Basically it means that was not what I am looking for. I will usually try the same thing again (unless I realized I have made an error) if I get the same response resulting in the "oops". At that point I change my approach or reevaluate what I am doing. We never try something again after two miscommunications, as at that point you are usually patterning the wrong behavior.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> I think that's what we get with this breed. They're bred with this incredible instinct for people pleasing, so when they get the sense they haven't, it's very upsetting to them. And when you train a dog to look to you and you develop that rapport and communication, the dog feels really crappy when he feels it break. It's like having your world suddenly become wobbly and upside down.


Sorry -- I know I won't make any friends with the following -- but to me that is NOT proper golden retriever temperament and DOES make for a difficult and frustrating dog to train. Why on earth would anyone want a working dog with a temperament that is unstable and uber-sensitive? So much so that one cross word or a lack of constant praise causes his world to come crashing down? No thanks. This is the exact opposite of "people pleasing" or biddable. It's manipulative.
I think this is common in goldens because so many people expect them to be sweet and demure so this response to correction is inadvertently reinforced and then perpetuated.


----------



## dannyra (Aug 5, 2008)

This is an interesting topic. Something I've never really thought of, but we're just getting into some of the agility stuff. I know I'd have to avoid using "Nope", since it starts with "No" and that means, hit the brakes, lay down and stop whatever she's doing.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Sorry -- I know I won't make any friends with the following -- but to me that is NOT proper golden retriever temperament and DOES make for a difficult and frustrating dog to train. Why on earth would anyone want a working dog with a temperament that is unstable and uber-sensitive? So much so that one cross word or a lack of constant praise causes his world to come crashing down? No thanks. This is the exact opposite of "people pleasing" or biddable. It's manipulative.
> I think this is common in goldens because so many people expect them to be sweet and demure so this response to correction is inadvertently reinforced and then perpetuated.


Lol, two seconds with a few of the seriously insensitive field labs in Tally's group make me happy for the middle ground. A few of the labs take a heavy hand/lot of correction. . .

How does Fisher take your correction? As information that he then uses? Do you give Fisher a No Reward Marker or an actual correction?


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

K9-Design said:


> Sorry -- I know I won't make any friends with the following -- but to me that is NOT proper golden retriever temperament and DOES make for a difficult and frustrating dog to train. Why on earth would anyone want a working dog with a temperament that is unstable and uber-sensitive? So much so that one cross word or a lack of constant praise causes his world to come crashing down? No thanks. This is the exact opposite of "people pleasing" or biddable. It's manipulative.
> I think this is common in goldens because so many people expect them to be sweet and demure so this response to correction is inadvertently reinforced and then perpetuated.


We can still be friends. I don't think I explained it well, since in no way would I describe Comet as "unstable" or "uber-sensitive" or that his world comes crashing down if he displeases me. When I said his world becomes wobbly, I meant that he feels out of sync and works hard to get back on the right track, not that he's emotionally overwrought and useless. I'm saying he's friendly, outgoing, adventurous, not shy to noise and that he's very attuned to me while we're working.

I've deliberately, not inadvertently reinforced with him that an angry-sounding "no" from me is BAD NEWS. That way I can provide both negative and positive feedback for him from a distance, especially in an emergency. An angry yell would send him slinking back to me, and even though it'll be mostly forgotten a minute later, I think that using negative vocal corrections as we train for agility could undermine his energy and love for the sport.

We're definitely talking about two different things here. I know we are because what you're describing makes a dog difficult and frustrating to train and I'd say Comet is the exact opposite. He's keyed into figuring out what will garner a click, a treat, or a "good dog."


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Very well said, described it exactly how I would have said it if I had been that good with words. Tito is not in the least unstable and as I said before, he's very outgoing, and I've never seen him afraid of anything or any noise. To me that's the proper golden temperament. In fact, it's his stable temperament that makes him so easy to show (obed). Nothing phases him in the ring. 
What he DOES do, however, and yes I do find it frustrating in training, is if he is not certain he's right, he will hang his head down and come very slowly back to me. Once he understands an exercise, he goes back to his usual bouncy self.
And maybe I will not make any friends with this, either, but in a lot of ways that's easier to deal with than a dog that just goes out and grabs (the utility articles, the gloves, etc.) and doesn't stop to wonder if he's right or wrong. 
I also think that what I thought I described, and what came across, must have been 2 different things because he has been quite successful in obed. at a very young age so I must not have made clear at all what I'm talking about, making it sound like he is hard to train! I don't praise during an exercise, only afterwards, so he doesn't need constant praise. I guess I'm not too good at making clear what I'm trying to say.





tippykayak said:


> We can still be friends. I don't think I explained it well, since in no way would I describe Comet as "unstable" or "uber-sensitive" or that his world comes crashing down if he displeases me. When I said his world becomes wobbly, I meant that he feels out of sync and works hard to get back on the right track, not that he's emotionally overwrought and useless. I'm saying he's friendly, outgoing, adventurous, not shy to noise and that he's very attuned to me while we're working.
> 
> I've deliberately, not inadvertently reinforced with him that an angry-sounding "no" from me is BAD NEWS. That way I can provide both negative and positive feedback for him from a distance, especially in an emergency. An angry yell would send him slinking back to me, and even though it'll be mostly forgotten a minute later, I think that using negative vocal corrections as we train for agility could undermine his energy and love for the sport.
> 
> We're definitely talking about two different things here. I know we are because what you're describing makes a dog difficult and frustrating to train and I'd say Comet is the exact opposite. He's keyed into figuring out what will garner a click, a treat, or a "good dog."


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> What he DOES do, however, and yes I do find it frustrating in training, is if he is not certain he's right, he will hang his head down and come very slowly back to me. Once he understands an exercise, he goes back to his usual bouncy self.


This might go back to LJilly's original question about how we mark a no reward situation. Are there cues you give Tito that make him hang his head? Does he do it just because you're ignoring him, or are you giving him some negative feedback?

I'm interested in this conversation because I'm currently completely ignoring Comet when he makes an error during agility training. For instance, if I take him to a jump and he goes around (typically out of confusion), I just stop the game, go back a couple of obstacles, and reset him.

Is the NRM only for when the dog "knows better?" Or do you use it in the earlier stages of shaping behavior as a sort of anti-click? Like, if he takes the jump, he gets a click and a treat, but if he runs around he gets the NRM and a reset?

I usually feel like when Comet screws up a pattern or obstacle, especially when he's this new to agility, it's because I didn't cue him well or because I haven't taught him the cue well enough. So it doesn't really feel "right" in my gut to give him any kind of correction. He's working _so_ hard to get the game "right" that I don't feel the need to negatively motivate, just to go back and reshape the behavior better.

On a long sit-stay, though, I do use a kind of NRM to keep him sitting and not switching to a lie-down. If he's on sit-stay and he starts to lie down, I'll say "nope" and redirect him to sit. I feel in this situation, it's important to mark the undesired behavior to help him differentiate between sit-stay and down-stay. It's also a situation where I want the dog to be calmer and less creative.

So, after this fairly long ramble, I'd say I'm currently avoiding NRMs in situations where I'm still at the early shaping, especially when I want the dog to maintain excitement and creativity (shooting through the tunnel or getting all four paws on the wobble-board), but use them very judiciously in the final stages of perfecting a behavior, particularly when calm accuracy is more important.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I've wondered that, too, and I've wondered if, as Annie said, it's manipulative and it's learned behavior. And I guess it must be, because he's not at all like that in agility, but then he's so excited to be doing agility that it seems to override everything else, including, at times, whether or not I'm even in the ring with him. He doesn't feel that way about obedience. He likes the utility exercises, most of the open ones, and just deals with novice stuff. 
Let me describe a situation as an example. When he was first learning the gloves in utility, I would have him mark and then take the glove. He'd go out, get the CORRECT glove, and then come slowly back to me. Now mind you, he's got the correct one. So nothing about my body language, expression, etc. should say "no, you're wrong". In fact, quite the opposite because I'm pleased that he's got the correct one! I've got a big smile on my face. When he gets to me, then I'm very happy and he gets praised for getting the right one. So why the slow return? Because he doesn't know if he's right or wrong. 
Now that he knows that he knows how to do the glove exercise, we have a brisk, happy return. He's still having some problems with articles, and we have a very slow return on articles. He's not sure he *knows* the exercise. 
So this is going to branch out into a training philosophy discussion. When he's doing obedience, I do not reinforce him while he's working it. Only after he's committed himself to the decision. If he's picked up the correct article, I wait until he's very clearly heading back to me, and gets (different distances) closer, before telling him "yes! good boy!". Sometimes I wait until he's all the way to me and I've taken it from his mouth before reinforcing him. I don't want him to rely on me to tell him if he's right or wrong when he's still deciding. Same thing with gloves. He has to have the glove in his mouth and be at least halfway back or more before I will reinforce him. Now that he understands the gloves, he doesn't get reinforced until he's all the way back.
So I dunno. Once he understands an exercise, if he does it wrong, I can give him a good stern verbal correction and he will just take it in stride. 
Beats me.
Here's a thought (thinking out loud here). Maybe it's a case of, "I don't know how to do this so I don't like doing it and I'm going to drag my heels the whole way" rather than worry about being right or wrong.
Dunno.





tippykayak said:


> This might go back to LJilly's original question about how we mark a no reward situation. Are there cues you give Tito that make him hang his head? Does he do it just because you're ignoring him, or are you giving him some negative feedback?


----------



## MurphyTeller (Sep 28, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> Sorry - clarification on the definition here. That's sort of the opposite of click and treat? Not a correction but a way of marking an incorrect behavior?
> 
> Is it the kind of thing you would avoid in the early learning stages?


I introduce the NRM as babies - With puppies I do a lo of shaping - teach the puppy to think - and that thinking is rewarded. When they are that young they don't understand what a NRM is - but over time it's conditioned - Try again. 

It gets more complicated when you're dealing with learned behaviors - lets say a very smart and intuitive puppy is asked to sit, then they throw themselves in a down, when that doesn't get a click they sit back up again and then back into a down. They are offering behaviors - I don't want to stifle this process - but I don't want to reinforce the puppy-pushups either. So I'll move - they will move with me - and I'll ask them to try again - now clicking as SOON as that tushie hits the floor before they have a chance to offer another behavior.

I personally don't think of a NRM as the opposite of a click and treat - that would mean that withholding the click and treat is a NRM right? Eventually you move (progress) from the clicker and do stop providing a click - but the behavior is still correct - whereas a NRM is a "that's not right, keep trying". 

To complicate things further....a NRM is a correction - by my definition a correction is a fix - "that's not right try again".

Erica


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

Hey gals, thanks for explaining a little more and now I do think we are on the same page. 
I don't do agility so I really can't compare the corrections/NRMs or whatever for agility.
In obedience, as much as any other venue, in my opinion you establish very early on some "base" behaviors that should be default assumptions by the dog and as a consequence for not doing these behaviors, he's given a correction that he understands how to turn off. Examples in obedience are "WATCH" (correction = pop on leash) and "TAKE IT" (correction = ear pinch). In field work it would be your basic go-stop-come with a nick from the collar if not complied with. These are very very basic "rules" that the dog should come to know before moving on. Basically, these rules establish that the dog must TRY -- to make an effort -- whether right or not. 
I have found that once these basic rules are established there isn't a lot of true "corrections" in obedience. Rather it's more that you give the dog information and a LOT of reinforcement for doing it right. You have to do whatever it takes to get the dog to do it RIGHT (and by this I mean, manipulating the dog, yourself, your location and/or equipment to decrease the difficulty so he is successful) and then build on that. 
Okay, I'm kind of rambling at this point! I've sort of forgotten what the point was 
I love to see a dog take a correction (and by correction I mean, something fair and reasonable on the trainer's part) and say "OH! Okay, not that! Lemme try harder!" 
I have had many training sessions where I have really had to go backwards and break it down for Fisher and still he makes mistakes that I know are due to a lack of effort, either physically or mentally. My main goal is for him to give an effort and realize he CAN do what I'm asking, just try, even if it's not perfect. This may involve corrections but I'm trying to communicate and you are not a bad dog, just not doing it quite right. The phenomenon is, almost always the next training session, Fisher will be gangbusters to do it and will absolutely nail whatever we had trouble with last time. 
I think work ethic like this is not only born but made. I think a lot of people would have more confident working goldens if someone would tell them to stop the sad sap act.
Hotel4dogs - have you read Connie Cleveland's obedience articles. This is where I'm getting a lot of this and I defintely subscribe to it. 
Good discussion.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I just tonight had someone offer my the Connie Cleveland DVDs, and I'm going to jump on the offer. He does need to stop the sad sap act. It was really bad tonight when he did the articles. But boy oh boy, he was all about the jumping.
I see this in a new light.




K9-Design said:


> I think work ethic like this is not only born but made. I think a lot of people would have more confident working goldens if someone would tell them to stop the sad sap act.
> Hotel4dogs - have you read Connie Cleveland's obedience articles. This is where I'm getting a lot of this and I defintely subscribe to it.
> Good discussion.


----------

