Just Show Me A Sign

Like many dog trainers, I use both verbal and gestural (hand) signals as cues with my dogs. With our students, we introduce both verbal and physical cues at the same time, but generally emphasize verbal signals because this is what most pet owners prefer to use with their dogs.

AG Down Stay


All of our classes include instructions for fading gestural cues in favor of  verbal cues for owners who wish to use primarily verbal signals. Students are taught to “lead with the verbal cue and follow with the gesture“, thus establishing a classical relationship (verbal signal predicts gesture signal). This connection allows the trainer to gradually fade the hand signal and eventually to rely primarily on the verbal command.

On the other hand (literally), hand signals are a lot of fun to teach and come in handy in a wide variety of exercises. For these, we offer a dedicated “hand signals” class, for students who are interested in teaching their dog distance signals and hand cues for direction or jumping. This is great fun for dogs and their people and is also helpful for students who are interested in competing in dog sports.

Chip Agility Jumping  Chip Down Signal                      CHIPPY SHOWS OFF HIS HAND SIGNALS FOR JUMPING AND DOWN

However, like many dog training practices, the use of verbal versus hand signals with dogs has not been formally studied. Until recently, that is.

Enter Biagio D’Aniello and his team of scientists at the University of Naples (among others) in Italy. I have written about this group’s research on previous occasions. They work with retrievers who are trained for water rescue work and are reporting new information regarding the dog’s communication skills and ability to learn through observation (see “With a Little Help from My Friends” and “Doggie See, Doggie Do“).

This time around, the researchers asked whether dogs who are trained to respond equally to verbal and gestural cues show a preference for one type over the other.

The Study: A group of 25 certified water rescue dogs were enrolled. The group included 10 Golden Retrievers and 15 Labrador Retrievers, composed of 12 males and 13 females. Per training protocols for water rescue, all of the dogs had been trained to respond to both verbal and gestural cues. The dogs were tested in four behaviors; sit, down, stay and come. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1: The four basic commands were given using gestures only. Phase 2: Commands were delivered using a verbal cue only. Phase 3: (Here is where things get tricky). Both forms of a command were given, but incongruently (i.e. they conflicted with each other). For example, the verbal command for “sit” was paired with the gesture for “down”, the verbal command for “come” was paired with the gesture for “stay”, etc. The frequencies of correct responses were recorded in the first two phases, and a “preference index” that indicated the percent of correct gestural responses was calculated for the third phase.


  1. Just a sign, please: When gestures alone were used, all of the dogs responded correctly to all four commands, with the exception of a single error (one dog missed a “down” signal). In contrast, when verbal cues were used, the dogs made a total of 18 errors. The most common mistake was failing to lie down in response to the verbal command “down”. These results suggest that dogs who were trained using both verbal and hand signal cues (and when no attempt was made to emphasize one type of signal over the other), the dogs responded more consistently to gestures than to verbal cues.
  2. Location, location, location: While dogs showed an overall preference for gestures over verbal commands, this preference was not found when the verbal command to “come” was paired with the hand signal “stay” and the owner was located a distance away from the dog. In this case, the majority of dogs (56 %) responded to the verbal command. This difference suggests that although the dogs tended to pay more attention to hand signals than to verbal commands, this preference may be overridden by the preference to stay in close proximity to the owner.
  3. Girls may be more visual: An interesting result of this paper was the sex difference that was found. Female dogs showed a strong preference for responding to hand gesture cues, while males were more likely to respond equally to both types of cue. (Note: Although there is a bit of previous research suggesting that female dogs concentrate more on visual cues than do males, the small numbers in this trial coupled with the method of scoring lead the researchers to interpret this result with caution – in other words, this may be a “statistical hiccup”).

This pilot study suggests that when dogs are trained to both hand signals and verbal commands, they will respond most consistently to hand signals. The study also suggests that context is an important factor, in that having a preference to be close to the trainer may override a preference for gestural signals, leading a dog to choose the signal (verbal or gestural) that leads to proximity.

Take Away for Dog Folks

The finding that dogs (usually) respond better to hand signals than they do to verbal cues is probably not surprising to most trainers. This certainly supports our understanding of dogs as being highly responsive to body language and non-verbal cues. Still, it is always gratifying to find scientific data that supports one’s (previously unsupported) suppositions.

This is Data

Do hand signals have enhanced saliency? However, is it possible that there is more to the differences found in this study than is explained by the dog’s proclivity for reading body language? This paper lead me to think more deeply about these two types of signals; specifically about the type of hand signals that we choose to use.  The majority of hand signals that we use in dog training are far from being  arbitrary signals. Rather they are structured in both form and function to direct the dog’s attention or body to part or all of the targeted behavior. For example, a commonly used hand signal for “down” is  a sweeping motion from the dog’s “nose to his toes”. During training, this gesture easily doubles as both a lure when food is held in the hand and as a vehicle to deliver positive reinforcement when the hand delivers a food treat once the dog attains the down position. A reliable response to the hand signal alone is achieved by gradually removing the lure from the signaling hand and switching to +R from the opposite hand. We are then left with a hand signal that has, well, enhanced saliency for the dog, if you will. A second example is the use of body language and hand signals to inform a dog about the direction to run or jump in agility training. The physical signal itself has inherent meaning to the dog (we all get this). This signal is then enhanced by pairing it with food or an opportunity to tug. Contrast these gesture examples to the variety of verbal cues that we use with dogs (sit, down, come, etc). All of these, of course, are completely arbitrary from the dog’s point of view. We could just as easily use the word “down” to train a down command as the word “pumpkin” or “fluffy butt”. While we do enhance saliency by pairing these terms with reinforcers, they cannot be structured in the same way that gestures can to be naturally obvious (salient) to the dog.

So, in addition to dogs being highly attentive to body language (I think we all agree on that), it also seems that the hand signals that we select function to naturally attract our dog’s attention and direct behavior. The trainer “beefs up” this attraction by pairing the signal with positive reinforcement. Therefore, gestural cues may always have one step up over verbal cues when comparing the two (when the owner is in close proximity). Here is an idea – try training a sit using a down hand signal or teaching an agility dog to jump in the opposite direction from which you are pointing. In addition to this being a bit of a training challenge (more than a bit, I suspect), I would hypothesize that when arbitrary gestural signals are compared with verbal cues, we might see a leveling out of the preferences for gesture versus verbal signals. Just an idea……any researchers biting?

A role for individual preference and reinforcement history? I also pondered what the influence of an individual’s preference might be in this type of testing. All dogs tend to have certain exercises that they enjoy more than others. Some of these exercises may be inherently reinforcing for the dog while others may simply be preferred because they have a strong reinforcement history with the trainer (i.e. the exercise has been practiced and reinforced more frequently). In the case of this study, we might expect that dogs trained for water rescue work would be highly bonded to their owners and would also have a very strong reinforcement history for the “come” command. It would be interesting to explore verbal versus gesture preferences in dogs who are trained for different types of work, who may have different behavior preferences and reinforcement histories. Such a test would be analogous to the study that this same group did with dog’s looking back for help, in which they found some very interesting differences.

In practice: From a practical viewpoint, as a trainer, these results suggest to me that we should be doubly careful when fading hand signals in favor of verbal cues, especially when training a dog’s less preferred behaviors. While this research suggests that dogs are asking us to “just show me a sign”, it also seems that their responses will be influenced by a number of factors, including looking for the cue that tells them what they want to hear!

Dottie Come when Called


Cited Study: D’Aniello B, Scandurra A, Alterisio A, Valsecchi P, Prato-Previde E. The importance of gestural communication: A study of human-dog communication using incongruent information. Animal Cognition 2016; DOI: 10.1007/s10071-016-1010-5.

11 thoughts on “Just Show Me A Sign

  1. apropos of different dogs, I found that my (wonderful) Working Kelpie responded best to eye gaze, and secondly shoulder direction.
    Which probably explains why so many working dogs tend to spin if their handler looks directly into THEIR eyes,


  2. Pingback: 言葉のキューvsハンドシグナル、犬はどちらを重視する? 尾形聡子 | 犬曰く

  3. Loved reading your analysis of this study, and have taken your suggestions for future research on board as a new researcher myself 🙂 One of the hardest parts about real-world research, such as this, is you never start with a blank slate. Every dog (and handler) has a history with lots of variation which cannot be controlled for. To have confidence in findings it will require many replications of studies with only slight adjustments in methods/population/samples/etc. to build a picture of behavioural effects we can be confident in. As some of the other commenters have pointed out, there are other aspects such as handler body language which are likely to also have an effect, and issues such as this one are tough because we don’t have measurement tools which are specific, reliable and valid enough to capture these and discriminate how they impact on each dog aside from other cues, whatever type they may be. We have a long way to go before we can run sophisticated enough studies to unravel a lot of these complex questions.


    • Hi Hayley, Thanks for your comment and congratulations on entering an exciting and growing field! I look forward to learning more about your work (and writing about it, if you would like!). I completely agree about the challenges of conducting applied research with dogs who live in homes. I wrote about this in “The Steve Series” in “Beware the Straw Man” and in several other essays in that book. I think we live in exciting times in which so many talented and dedicated scientists, (like you!) are tackling these questions and the difficulties of working with diverse samples of dogs. Baby steps, for sure, but that is what good science is, of course! Thanks and best of luck as you begin your research! Linda


  4. On your comment about reinforcement history, I read their description before and really felt that uniform training history potentially added a very strong bias to that experiment. I’d see a similar issue with dogs trained for other jobs. Even though I’ve come to the same conclusion as they did, with many random shelter dogs. On gestures, one thing I’ve noted is a significant difference, especially in early response, to people using the same command gesture, but with different overall body language. Even in later training, this also appeared to effect the reliability, and would be another variable for any experiment to relate to common dog owners.

    I’ve also seen some verbal commands potentially more reliable when the dog is distracted or resistant, and ascribed that to our ability to apply far more emphasis on verbal commands.

    As to specifically arbitrary gestures, you choose a few where the orienting aspect is in conflict, which I’d expect to show some difference. I’d be more interested in those that were more orientation neutral.


  5. There is no mention of clicker training here. It seems as though trainers either avoid it altogether or swear by it. Can this training be done with a clicker? Is it merely a choice to be made by the trainer?


    • Hi Scott, Um….there is no mention of clicker training simply because the research study was not about clicker training. 🙂 I am a clicker trainer and the training that I refer to with my own dogs is all conducted with clicker training. I cannot speak for the water rescue dog trainers in this study, but do know that they focus on +R (and may also use clickers – just was not reported in this particular paper). Best, Linda Case

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Fascinating! One other aspect not considered: the individual’s sensitivity to auditory vs. visual input. In my experience, individuals do show differences that must be taken into account. It is one of my very first sorts in working with an animal, and part of my assessment. Knowing if a dog is more visual than auditory or vice versa (or both, or neither) helps me help handlers fine-tune their signals to be ones that are particularly easily recognized for the dog. While we all know a dog with visual or auditory impairment needs different signals from one with normal hearing or sight, we forget there are significant differences in sensory processing in “normal” individuals. Studies like this lump dogs into one broad category with regards to their abilities to perceive the signal provided.

    I find it is helpful to good training to help handlers understand that while Mr. Smith’s little dog Coco responds to the visual input of the merest twitch of his hand, their dog may need different or broader visual signals, but can work on the merest whisper.

    Finally, a hand signal which clearly alters silhouette and/or has a large amplitude of movement from a distance is often useful to provide many dogs with a clearly recognized signal. I venture that those involved in the study did not first determine how well any given dog could see (or hear?) at a distance, but handlers working with their own dogs surely can and should.

    Great to see such nice research being done that asks these questions about our animal friends!


    • Hi “Rcttrainer” – Thanks for your comment. Your experiences regarding individual dogs’ sensory differences is interesting. I am not aware of any research that examines or supports such differences, but agree that they could certainly be possible. I will keep my eyes (and ears) 🙂 open for any research in this area! Thanks for reading – Linda

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi Linda
        Actually, there is a lot out there regarding visual deficits in dogs. Here’s a sampling of articles you may find useful. Some are pretty old, some are very recent. But all point to the reality of significant differences in how individual dogs see.

        Science will eventually catch up to what practical trainers already know about the spectrum of sensory sensitivity.

        Suzanne Clothier

        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992 Jul;33(8):2459-63.
        Myopia and refractive error in dogs.
        Murphy CJ1, Zadnik K, Mannis MJ.

        Am J Vet Res. 2008 Jul;69(7):946-51. doi: 10.2460/ajvr.69.7.946.
        Refractive states of eyes and association between ametropia and breed in dogs.
        Kubai MA1, Bentley E, Miller PE, Mutti DO, Murphy CJ.

        PLoS One. 2016 Feb 10;11(2):e0148436. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148436. eCollection 2016.
        Aging Dogs Manifest Myopia as Measured by Autorefractor.
        Hernandez J1, Moore C2, Si X3, Richer S4, Jackson J3, Wang W3.

        Vet Ophthalmol. 2015 Sep 29. doi: 10.1111/vop.12315. [Epub ahead of print]
        Novel retinopathy in related Gordon setters: a clinical, behavioral, electrophysiological, and genetic investigation.
        Good KL1, Komáromy AM2,3, Kass PH4, Ofri R5.

        PLoS One. 2015 Sep 14;10(9):e0137072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0137072. eCollection 2015.
        A Naturally Occurring Canine Model of Autosomal Recessive Congenital Stationary Night Blindness.
        Kondo M1, Das G2, Imai R3, Santana E2, Nakashita T3, Imawaka M3, Ueda K3, Ohtsuka H3, Sakai K4, Aihara T4, Kato K1, Sugimoto M1, Ueno S5, Nishizawa Y6, Aguirre GD2, Miyadera K2.

        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008 Nov;49(11):4784-9. doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-1828. Epub 2008 Jun 19.
        A canine model of inherited myopia: familial aggregation of refractive error in labrador retrievers.
        Black J1, Browning SR, Collins AV, Phillips JR.

        Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Nov 8;54(12):7324-8. doi: 10.1167/iovs.12-10993.
        Heritability of lenticular myopia in English Springer spaniels.
        Kubai MA1, Labelle AL, Hamor RE, Mutti DO, Famula TR, Murphy CJ.


        • Hi Suzanne, Thanks for the papers. However, I was referring to the major point of your comment, that normal (healthy) dogs may respond to and learn differently via verbal versus gestural cues. I don’t think there is much research on that topic, but find it a fascinating subject. Since we have clearly selected for sensory differences among dog breeds (compare the gaze hound breeds to the scent hound breeds for example, or herding dogs versus sporting breeds), it seems logical that dogs would differ in sensory perceptions and sensitivity and subsequently how they learn from verbal versus physical cues. While we are starting to see some really interesting work that compares the behavior and cognitive abilities of different breeds, I have not (yet) seen anything that studies what you describe – how breeds may differ in learning styles. Will keep my eyes (and ears 🙂 ) open for it though! Thanks for writing in and for the great information! Linda

          Liked by 1 person

Have a comment? Feel welcome to participate!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s