Jennifer M. Cunha
ABSTRACT
Recent technological advances have made touchscreen devices more widely available for animal-computer interaction, but there is little consensus about methods for discrimination task training frameworks. Here we discuss the potential enrichment and communicative uses for touchscreen-based interactions as well as benefits and limitations of automated learning systems and social learning systems. We review the literature for discrimination training methods on touchscreen devices for a variety of species and discuss what we recommend as an expanded framework for cross-species discrimination training methods. This framework includes environment and device selection and setup, orientation and habituation, touchscreen shaping skills, and discrimination training. When done ethically, human-assisted animal interaction with technology can improve psychological wellbeing and cognitive enrichment through environmental choice and control, enhance human-animal relationships, and provide data collection opportunities for research.
- David Washburn, “The Four Cs of Psychological Wellbeing: Lessons from Three Decades of Computer-based Environmental Enrichment,” Anim Behav Cogn, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 218–232, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.12966/abc.08.02.2015.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Allyson J. Bennett and Jeremy D. Bailoo, “Psychological Evaluation model for NHP Environmental Enrichment,” 2018.Google Scholar
- Joël Fagot and Elodie Bonté, “Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: Use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free-ranging baboons (Papio papio),” Behav Res Methods, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 507–516, May 2010, doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.507.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lisa J. Wallis, Friederike Range, Eniko Kubinyi, Durga Chapagain, Jessica Serra, and Ludwig Huber, “Utilising dog-computer interactions to provide mental stimulation in dogs especially during ageing,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Nov. 2017, vol. Part F132525. doi: 10.1145/3152130.3152146.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clint Zeagler, Scott Gilliland, Larry Freil, Thad Starner, and Melody Moore Jackson, “Going to the dogs: Towards an interactive touchscreen interface for working dogs,” in UIST 2014 - Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Oct. 2014, pp. 497–508. doi: 10.1145/2642918.2647364.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michelle Westerlaken and Stefano Gualeni, “Felino: The Philosophical Practice of Making an Interspecies Videogame,” 2014.Google Scholar
- Clemens Driessen, Kars Alfrink, Marinka Copier, Hein Lagerweij, and Irene van Peer, “What could playing with pigs do to us? Game design as multispecies philosophy,” 2014.Google Scholar
- Jennifer Cunha and Carlie Rhoads, “Use of a Tablet-Based Communication Board and Subsequent Choice and Behavioral Correspondences in a Goffin's Cockatoo (Cacatua goffiana),” Nov. 2020. doi: 10.1145/3446002.3446063.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lydia Hopper, Crystal Eggelkamp, Mason Fidino, and Stephen Ross, “An assessment of touchscreens for testing primate food preferences and valuations.,” Behav Res Methods, vol. 51, p. 639650, 2018.Google Scholar
- Jennifer Vonk, Jordyn Truax, and Molly C. McQuire, “A Food for All Seasons: Stability of Food Preferences in Gorillas across Testing Methods and Seasons,” Animals, vol. 12, no. 6, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/ani12060685.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viktoria Krakenberg, Maximilian Wewer, Rupert Palme, Sylvia Kaiser, Norbert Sachser, and S. Helene Richter, “Regular touchscreen training affects faecal corticosterone metabolites and anxiety-like behaviour in mice,” Behavioural Brain Research, vol. 401, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2020.113080.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin M. Seitz, Kelsey McCune, Maggie MacPherson, Luisa Bergeron, Aaron P. Blaisdell, and Corina J. Logan, “Using touchscreen equipped operant chambers to study animal cognition. Benefits, limitations, and advice,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 2 February 2021, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246446.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert G Cook, Alfred I. Geller, Guo-Rong Zhang, and Ram Gowda, “Touchscreen-enhanced visual learning in rats,” 2004. [Online]. Available: http://www.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ludwig Huber, Wilfried Apfalter, Michael Steurer, and Hermann Prossinger, “A new learning paradigm elicits fast visual discrimination in pigeons,” J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 237–246, Apr. 2005, doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.31.2.237.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zoe Johnson-Ulrich and Jennifer Vonk, “Spatial representation of magnitude in humans (Homo sapiens), Western lowland gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla), and American black bears (Ursus americanus),” Anim Cogn, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 531–550, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10071-018-1186-y.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ulrike Aust, Friederike Range, Michael Steurer, and Ludwig Huber, “Inferential reasoning by exclusion in pigeons, dogs, and humans,” Anim Cogn, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 587–597, Oct. 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0149-0.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark O'Hara, Alice M.I. Auersperg, Thomas Bugnyar, and Ludwig Huber, “Inference by exclusion in Goffin cockatoos (Cacatua goffini),” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 8, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134894.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sandra Mikolasch, Kurt Kotrschal, and Christian Schloegl, “African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) use inference by exclusion to find hidden food,” Biol Lett, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 875–877, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0500.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Denise Kurz, “Touch-screen experiments-Common marmosets can discriminate between positive and negative stimuli but can they reason by exclusion,” 2011.Google Scholar
- Heidi Marsh, Alexander Vining, Emma Levendoski, and Peter Judge, “Inference by exclusion in lion-tailed macaques (Macaca silenus), a hamadryas baboon (Papio hamadryas), capuchins (Sapajus apella), and squirrel monkeys (Saimiri sciureus).,” J Comp Psychol., vol. 129, no. 3, p. 256267, 2015.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Claudia Stephan, Anna Wilkinson, and Ludwig Huber, “Have we met before? Pigeons recognise familiar human faces,” Avian Biol Res, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 75–80, 2012, doi: 10.3184/175815512X13350970204867.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kent D. Bodily, Jeffrey S. Katz, and Anthony A. Wright, “Matching-to-Sample Abstract-Concept Learning by Pigeons,” J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 178–184, Jan. 2008, doi: 10.1037/0097-7403.34.1.178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dániel Rivas-Blanco, Ina Maria Pohl, Rachel Dale, Marianne Theres Elisabeth Heberlein, and Friederike Range, “Wolves and Dogs May Rely on Non-numerical Cues in Quantity Discrimination Tasks When Given the Choice,” Front Psychol, vol. 11, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.573317.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clara Mancini, “Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal–Computer Interaction,” International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 98, pp. 221–233, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.008.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clara Mancini and Eleonora Nannoni, “Relevance, Impartiality, Welfare and Consent: Principles of an Animal-Centered Research Ethics,” Frontiers in Animal Science, vol. 3, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.3389/fanim.2022.800186.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clara Mancini, “Animal-Computer Interaction: A Manifesto,” 2011.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ilyena Hirskyj-Dougla, Patricia Pons, Janet C. Read, and Javier Jaen, “Seven years after the manifesto: Literature review and research directions for technologies in animal computer interaction,” Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, vol. 2, no. 2. MDPI AG, Jun. 01, 2018. doi: 10.3390/mti2020030.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shang Ping Lee , “A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for human-poultry interaction through the internet,” Pers Ubiquitous Comput, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 301–317, Aug. 2006, doi: 10.1007/s00779-005-0051-6.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Juan Haladjian, Zardosht Hodaie, Stefan Nüske, and Bernd Brügge, “Gait anomaly detection in dairy cattle,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Nov. 2017, vol. Part F132525. doi: 10.1145/3152130.3152135.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas and Janet C. Read, “DoggyVision: Examining how dogs (Canis familiaris) interact with media using a dog-driven proximity tracker device.,” Anim Behav Cogn, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 388–405, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.26451/abc.05.04.06.2018.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patricia Pons, Javier Jaen, and Alejandro Catala, “Towards future interactive intelligent systems for animals: Study and recognition of embodied interactions,” in International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings IUI, Mar. 2017, pp. 389–400. doi: 10.1145/3025171.3025175.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fiona French and Martin Kaltenbrunner, “User Experience for Elephants Researching Interactive Enrichment through Design and Craft,” 2020.Google Scholar
- Hiroki Kobayashi, Kazuhiko Nakamura, Kana Muramatsu, Kaoru Saito, Junya Okuno, and Akio Fujiwara, “Playful rocksalt system: Animal-computer interaction design in wild environments,” ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, 12th Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology Conference, , 2015.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joshua E. Wolf, Catherine M. Urbano, Chad M. Ruprecht, and Kenneth J. Leising, “Need to train your rat? There is an App for that: A touchscreen behavioral evaluation system,” Behav Res Methods, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 206–214, 2014, doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0366-6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Damian Scarf, “Getting out of the lab: The development of a free-range learning apparatus for pigeons (FLAP) Authoritarian tendencies arising from a fear of COVID-19 View project Outdoor Education View project Getting out of the lab: The development of a free-range learning apparatus for pigeons (FLAP) Acknowledgment,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358275129Google Scholar
- Sarah E. Ritvo and Suzanne E. MacDonald, “Preference for free or forced choice in Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii),” J Exp Anal Behav, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 419–434, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1002/jeab.584.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Julia Mueller-Paul, A. Wilkinson, U. Aust, M. Steurer, G. Hall, and L. Huber, “Touchscreen performance and knowledge transfer in the red-footed tortoise (Chelonoidis carbonaria),” Behavioural Processes, vol. 106, pp. 187–192, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2014.06.003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Caroline B. Drucker, Talia Baghdoyan, and Elizabeth M. Brannon, “Implicit sequence learning in ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta),” J Exp Anal Behav, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 123–132, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1002/jeab.180.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linda Brent and D. Weaver, “The physiological and behavioral effects of radio music on signly housed baboons,” 1996.Google Scholar
- Paul E. Honess and C M. Marin, “Enrichment and aggression in primates,” Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 30, no. 3. pp. 413–436, 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.05.002.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Scott W. Line, A. S. Clarke, Hal Markowitz, and G. Ellman, “Responses of female rhesus macaques to an environmental enrichment apparatus,” 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clara Mancini, “Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal–Computer Interaction,” International Journal of Human Computer Studies, vol. 98, pp. 221–233, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.008.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nicolas Claidière, Julie Gullstrand, Aurélien Latouche, and Joël Fagot, “Using Automated Learning Devices for Monkeys (ALDM) to study social networks,” Behav Res Methods, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 24–34, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0686-9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas and Vilma Kankaanpää, “Article exploring how white-faced sakis control digital visual enrichment systems,” Animals, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–19, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.3390/ani11020557.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cecilie M. Mejdell, Turid Buvik, Grete H.M. Jorgensen, and Knut E. Bøe, “Horses can learn to use symbols to communicate their preferences,” Appl Anim Behav Sci, vol. 184, pp. 66–73, Nov. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2016.07.014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bruce S. McEwen and Robert M. Sapolsky, “Stress and cognitive function Introduction Catecholamines and glucocorticoids,” 1995.Google Scholar
- Zdeněk Hliňák and E. Rozmarová, “The locomotor-exploratory behaviour of laboratory male rats tested under the ‘red’ and ‘white’ light conditions,” Act Nerv Super (Praha), vol. 28, 1986.Google Scholar
- Robert B Lockard, “Some effects of light upon the behavior of rodents” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 509-529, 1963.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexa E. Horner , “The touchscreen operant platform for testing learning and memory in rats and mice,” Nat Protoc, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1961–1984, Oct. 2014, doi: 10.1038/nprot.2013.122.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clint Zeagler , “Canine computer interaction: Towards designing a touchscreen interface for working dogs,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Nov. 2016, vol. 15-17-November-2016. doi: 10.1145/2995257.2995384.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clint Zeagler, Scott Gilliland, Larry Freil, Thad Starner, and Melody Moore Jackson, “Going to the dogs: Towards an interactive touchscreen interface for working dogs,” in UIST 2014 - Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Oct. 2014, pp. 497–508. doi: 10.1145/2642918.2647364.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Caitlin A. Ford, Liz Bellward, Clive J. C. Phillips, and Kris Descovich, “Use of Interactive Technology in Captive Great Ape Management,” Journal of Zoological and Botanical Gardens, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 300–315, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3390/jzbg2020021.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Stephen E.G. Lea, Emmanuel M. Pothos, Andy J. Wills, Lisa A. Leaver, Catriona M.E. Ryan, and Christina Meier, “Multiple Feature Use in Pigeons’ Category Discrimination: The Influence of Stimulus Set Structure and the Salience of Stimulus Differences,” J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn, vol. 04, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://pearl.plymouth.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
- Heli Väätäjä , “Technology for bonding in human-animal interaction,” in ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Nov. 2017, vol. Part F132525. doi: 10.1145/3152130.3152153.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Melody Moore Jackson , “Technology for working dogs,” Dec. 2018. doi: 10.1145/3295598.3295615.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ceara Byrne, Clint Zeagler, Larry Freil, Allison Rapoport, and Melody Moore Jackson, “Dogs using touchscreens in the home: A case study for assistance dogs operating emergency notification systems,” Dec. 2018. doi: 10.1145/3295598.3295610.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ludwig Huber, Nils Heise, Christopher Zeman, and Christian Palmers, “The ALDB box: Automatic testing of cognitive performance in groups of aviary-housed pigeons,” Behav Res Methods, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 162–171, 2015, doi: 10.3758/s13428-014-0462-2.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bonnie M. Perdue, “The effect of computerized testing on sun bear behavior and enrichment preferences,” Behavioral Sciences, vol. 6, no. 4, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.3390/bs6040019.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daan W. Laméris, Jonas Verspeek, Marcel Eens, and Jeroen M.G. Stevens, “Social and nonsocial stimuli alter the performance of bonobos during a pictorial emotional Stroop task,” Am J Primatol, vol. 84, no. 2, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1002/ajp.23356.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Masaki Tomonaga, Kiyonori Kumazaki, Florine Camus, Sophie Nicod, Carlos Pereira, and Tetsuro Matsuzawa, “A Horse's Eye View: Size and Shape Discrimination Compared with Other Mammals,” 2015.Google Scholar
- Susan G. Friedman, “Tsk, No, Eh-eh: Clearing the Path to Reinforcement with an Errorless Learning Mindset,” 2016.Google Scholar
- Fay E. Clark, “Cognitive enrichment and welfare: Current approaches and future directions,” Anim Behav Cogn, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 52–71, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.12966/abc.05.02.2017.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Irene M. Pepperberg, The Alex Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
- Irene M. Pepperberg, “Animal language studies: What happened?,” Psychon Bull Rev, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 181–185, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1101-y.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Larry Freil , “Canine-centered computing,” Foundations and Trends in Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 87–164, 2016, doi: 10.1561/1100000064.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jean Mckinley, Hannah Buchanan-Smith, Lois Bassett, and Keith Morris, “Training common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus) to cooperate during routine laboratory procedures: Ease of training and time investment.,” J Appl Anim Welf Sci., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 209–220, 2003.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- A Framework for Training Animals to Use Touchscreen Devices for Discrimination Tasks
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Mouse and touchscreen selection in the upper and lower visual fields
CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsNeuroanatomical evidence indicates the human eye's visual field can be functionally divided into two vertical hemifields, each specialized for specific functions. The upper visual field (UVF) is specialized to support perceptual tasks in the distance, ...
One-handed touchscreen input for legacy applications
CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSupporting one-handed thumb operation of touchscreen-based mobile devices presents a challenging tradeoff between visual expressivity and ease of interaction. ThumbSpace and Shift---two new application-independent, software-based interaction techniques--...
Evaluating one handed thumb tapping on mobile touchscreen devices
GI '08: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2008In spite of the increasing popularity of handheld touchscreen devices, little research has been conducted on how to evaluate and design one handed thumb tapping interactions. In this paper, we present a study that researched three issues related to ...
Comments