RESEARCH & EVIDENCE
Between signal
and meaning.
How do we study a possible communicative event while keeping uncertainty visible? CCR’s first peer-reviewed article sets out a framework for exactly that.
PRETTY · ATTENTIVE, AT HAVERIM
PUBLISHED · HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY · 26 AUGUST 2026
From button presses to situated communicative events
A methodological framework for canine augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) research under interpretive uncertainty.
Author
François G. Wayenberg
Journal
Frontiers in Animal Science
DOI
10.3389/fanim.2026.1907975
READING THE ARTICLE WELL
What it adds.
What it leaves open.
What the paper contributes
A way to document and assess canine soundboard events in context. A theoretical and methodological contribution — not a new empirical demonstration of canine semantics.
What remains unresolved
Any specific interpretation still needs evidence, alternatives and chances for disconfirmation. Publication does not validate every story in the CCR archive.
HOW CCR PRESENTS AN ACCOUNT
One account.
Five distinct layers.
Every field note can separate what was recorded from what it might mean. The layers below are CCR’s editorial template — prompts, not a newly verified transcript.
01
Observation
The exact action, sequence, participants, context and time — with the original recording or note attached where it exists. Unavailable details are marked as unavailable.
02
Interpretation
The observer’s proposed meaning, stated separately from the recorded behaviour and attributed to that observer.
03
Hypothesis
What a repeated pattern might suggest, and what a prospective observation would need to test.
04
Evidence
Source account, related research, recording availability, independent review and limitations. Narrative detail is never converted into a measurement.
05
Open questions
Association learning, human cueing, coincidence — and the future result that would weaken the preferred interpretation.