A method to evaluate haptic interfaces for working dogs

Abstract

Working dogs perform a variety of essential services for their human partners, from assisting people with disabilities, to Search and Rescue, police, and military work. Recent interest in the nascent field of Animal-Computer Interaction has prompted research in computer-mediated technology for communication between working dogs and their handlers. Haptic (touch) interfaces in the form of vibrating motors are a promising approach for handler-to-dog communication. Haptic interfaces can provide a silent, long-range method of sending commands to a dog, when voice or hand signals are inappropriate or impossible. However, evaluating haptic interfaces for dogs, who cannot self-report sensations, creates interesting challenges. This study draws on human-computer interaction concepts, such as Just Noticeable Difference, to explore methods and issues in evaluating haptic interfaces for working dogs. We created a haptic system and developed an evaluation method, reporting results for ten dogs of widely varying breeds, sizes, and coat types.

Animal-Computer Interaction: The emergence of a discipline

“…This same commitment to supporting human-animal cooperation by developing technologies that are appropriate for the animals' characteristics is demonstrated by Byrne et al (2016) contribution. In A Method to Evaluate Haptic Interfaces for Working Dogs, the authors present an approach to evaluating a haptic interface for working dogs who might be operating in a variety of contexts including assistance, search and rescue and policing.…”

The Emerging Nature of Participation in Multispecies Interaction Design

“…Majikes et al [19] highlight how providing dogs with timely feedback during training is essential, to which end they designed a wearable vest that recognizes canine postures and notifies the novice handler, helping to improve their feedback timing. Finally, Byrne et al [4] stress the importance of rigorously gathering dogs' feedback to technological interventions, for which they developed a detailed training protocol enabling them to evaluate the usability of their canine wearable vest's haptic interface against the dogs' performance. Here we are interested in the basic dynamics underpinning the training process and what these could tell us about the nature of participation in multispecies interaction design.…”

“…Training involves associative learning, that is a combination of classical and operant conditioning [4,38]. To begin with, the delivery of a reward (e.g.…”

“…The use of punishment in training is increasingly considered inappropriate, for ethical reasons and because it discourages dogs from offering new behaviors, as noted by Byrne et al [4]. Since safety is a priority over the acquisition of resources [26], for the dog whose undesired behavior is punished, offering new behaviors presents a risk of incurring aversive consequences and is best avoided, even if desired behaviors are positively reinforced.…”

“…While capitalizing on existing canine capabilities, the tasks that these dogs need to perform are not necessarily part of their evolved behavior and therefore require learning, usually through training. Even technologies designed to support working dogs in their tasks often require learning and thus training [4]. This is the case for dogs who will be operating the finished product as well as dogs who are involved in the design process.…”