Vaataja 2012 ux technology mediated interaction humans-dogs
-
Upload
helivaataja -
Category
Technology
-
view
539 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Vaataja 2012 ux technology mediated interaction humans-dogs
User experience in technology mediatedhuman‐animal interaction
Heli Väätäjä[email protected]
Presented at TUT for HCI studentsOct. 3rd, 2012
Material presented is created in collaboration with E. Pesonen
Opinions expressed are of the presenter (Heli Väätäjä)
Goals of the lecture• Exemplify (HCI) studies with animals
• Increase understanding of issues related to using animals in studies and designing for animals e.g.– Experience goals– Assessments– Ethical issues
7.10.2012 2
Technology for animals?
• What kind of technology?
• For what purposes is the technology used for?
• How do animals differ from humans?
7.10.2012 3
Animals and technology ‐ examples
Apes with apps• http://youtu.be/3KGrXZ5pWko
Kittens with apps• http://youtu.be/lNjpC1Du0ss
Dairy farm – cows and milking robots• http://youtu.be/oH0kCJGT7s0
Dog chasing laser pointer – do NOT implement this! • http://youtu.be/vzQRndakkW0
7.10.2012 4
Research results on dog’s cognition and emotion‐ examples
• Dogs prefer color images of conspecifics over color images of people, toys and alphabetic characters. (Study on dog’s visual cognition, Somppi et al. 2012)
• Dogs seem to use facial cues alone to differentiate individual dogs and humans when visual paired comparisons of photos of dogs and humans familiar and unfamiliar to the dog used (Racca et al. 2010)
• => previous research in related areas needs to be coveredwhen planning research designs and design of technology in our field ‐ this applies specifically also to technologymediated communication studies
• => expertise on animal behavior, cognition, emotions etcneeded, depending on the focus of the study.
7.10.2012 e
Technology mediated human‐animal interaction ‐ definition (source: Rover@Home, Resner, 2001)
7.10.2012 6
Studies in HCI dealing with animals ‐themes
7.10.2012 7
Studies on technology development ‐ examples
• Remote training(e.g. dogs: Rover@Home, Resner, 2001)
• Tracking & remote command – e.g. search and rescue (also applications in military use, hunting)(e.g. dogs: Britt et al. 2011)
• Gaming with pets(e.g. hamsters: Metazoa Ludens, Cheok et al. 2011)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jx9Ovw5RaLU
• Mediating touch to animal and movement of pet to human(e.g. chickens: Poultry.Internet, Lee et al. 2006)
http://youtu.be/1x‐8EzuMiqUNote: this study is one of the best currently available examples on study
design and reporting in the field of technology development available throughACM/IEEE when animals involved.
7.10.2012 8
Concepts
7.10.2012 9
Concepts• Animal welfare
– “state of an animal and the extent to which it is faring well or ill in a particular situation or at a particular point in its life. ‐‐there is no single, reliable measure of an animal’s welfare” (NRC, 2009)
– welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state, i.e. fitness and a sense of well‐being (FAWC)
– Physical and psychological component included => takeinto account in development of technology and studies
7.10.2012 10
Concepts• Stress
– “real or perceived perturbation to an organism’s physiological homeostasis or psychological well‐being.” (NRC, 2009)
– "A certain amount of stress is a normal part of any animal’s life and should not necessarily be considered detrimental to welfare. Stress should be regarded as a welfare problem only when the degree of perturbation is sufficiently acute or prolonged, and an animal’s capacity to restore homeostasis is exceeded.“ (NRC, 2009)
=> When doing research: travel to site, experimental settings, new surroundings, used technology (including sensors attached to animal), persons present etc may increase stress levels of animals. Training to environment, experimental setting, people present, used technology etcneeded to ensure validity of research findings. If possible, doing researchand studies in the everyday surroundings of the animal may be a betteroption.
7.10.2012 11
Experience goals for animals –examples for dogs
7.10.2012 12
The Five Freedoms as the fundamental experience goals for animals (FAWC)
Freedom How
1. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst By ready access to fresh water and a dietto maintain full health and vigour.
2. Freedom form Discomfort By providing an appropriate environmentincluding shelter and a comfortableresting area.
3. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease By prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment.
4. Freedom to Express Normal Behaviour By providing sufficient space, properfacilities and company of the animal’sown kind. Also: Possiblity to carry out natural behaviors.
5. Freedom form Fear and Distress By ensuring conditions and treatmentwhich avoid mental suffering.
7.10.2012 13
Common Reasons for lowered welfare of dogs (list in Väätäjä et al. 2012, created based on earlier research) Fear of environmental stimuli in urban environments, such as vehicles and noises
Noise phobias
Separation anxiety, that can be defined as a state of fear
Too many, prolonged or too strong environmental stressors
Unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive or attractive events
Fear or aggression caused by the used training methods and/or mistreatment (suchas physical punishment)
Fear caused by the use of technologies or tools that create aversive stimuli
Confinement, such as crating dogs for long‐periods of time
Lacking environmental stimuli and possibility to express natural behaviors related to exercise, eating and social encounters with humans and conspecifics.
Leaving alone for long periods of time7.10.2012 14
Examples of implications for technology development for dogs (see alsoVäätäjä et al. 2012)
• Provide a possibility for learning, problem solving, co‐operation, and other natural behaviors in reasonable amounts. “Reasonable” amount depends on the dog breed and personality, for example. The role and feasibility of technology in this needs careful consideration.
• Avoid types of stressors that wind the dog up or make them fearful or anxious. Keeping the dog in a calm state of mind enhances learning, enables concentration and potentially prevents further problems, such as hyperactivity, phobias, excessive fears, anxiety and aggression.
• Give the animal the control over the environment, so that unexpected things do not happen that scare or make the dog anxious or overexcited.
• Avoid enabling too attractive activity that is in itself too rewarding such as chasing objects, as this excites the dog and increases stress levels in long‐term and may lead to lowered welfare and problem behavior(s).
• Different individuals react differently to stimuli ‐ Respect the fact that dogs (animals) havedifferent personalities. Take it into account in research designs and design of technology for dogs.
• Use prior information on animal cognition and behavior and other relevant fields of animalresearch when/if designing technology mediated interaction. This information is essentialand on the other hand technology development enables new studies in animal behavior and cognition as well. Relatively little is still known on e.g. dog cognition. Use multidisciplinaryresearch teams in the projects.
7.10.2012 15
Assessing the dog’s (animal’s) experience and effects of technology
intervention
7.10.2012 16
7.10.2012 17
Personality categories of dogs(MH mentality assessment test, 15329 dogs, 164 breeds, 2002)
More info:Svartberg & Forkman,
2002Strandberg et al. 2005Svartberg, 2006
Fearfulness/Fearlessness
Playfulness SociabilityPray
behaviorCuriosity
Supertrait: Individual’s general propensity(tendency) to approach new thingsor objects and take risks
Aggressiveness
(c) Heli Väätäjä 18.7.2012
http://helivaataja.blogspot.fi/http://www.slideshare.net/heli.vaataja/luonne-ja-kayttaytyminen-testaamisesta-ja-tutkimustuloksista-g-rleiri-20120718
Dog’s Personality vs. studies• Different individuals react differently to differentstimuli (dimensions of a stimuli e.g.: intensity, length)
• Individuals used in the studies should not beexcessive in the intensity of the reactions on fear, aggressiveness as well as on slow or unable to recover from used stimuli– Screening of dogs prior to the study for fearful and aggressive behavior as well as for other behaviorproblems
• E.g. CBARQ questionnairehttp://vetapps.vet.upenn.edu/cbarq/
7.10.2012 18
Assessments with animals
• No direct way to ask for impressions ordescriptions of experience:– Other types of assessments and measurements of
• dog’s reactions, • emotions (affect) and • possible behavioral changes
– in short and long term– For preferences and effects on welfare
7.10.2012 19
Possibilities for assessment (focus on dogs) (see Väätäjä et al. 2012 for list of references)
• questionnaires for dog owners or handlers on dog behavior and signs of stress [9][13][14][24],
• observation of dog’s reactions, activity levels and behavior ([21], see e.g. [14] for a list of signs of stress),
• measurement of physiological signals, such as heart rate or blood cortisol [21] (note: these may rather be indicators of arousal in general [16])
• preference or point of interest by eye‐tracking [28],• assessment of dog’s affective state by cognitive measures,
such as cognitive affective bias [16]• preference for using the developed solution over not using it
[2] [12]
7.10.2012 20
Ethical issues
7.10.2012 21
Key difference between human participants and animals in research?
• The human’s ability to give informed consent marks the difference in the ethical treatment of humans and animals (MRC)
• The animals’ inability to speak, jointly with the ability to suffer, has shaped the ethical protocols (MRC)
7.10.2012 22
In the focus:
• The humane treatment of animals
7.10.2012 23
What to ask yourself?• Is this research and use of animals absolutelynecessary and justified?
• How does this technology affect the welfare(psychological and physical) of the individualanimal or species?– In the study– In long‐term use
• What is the benefit compared to the cost?– See e.g. ISAE Ethics Committee
7.10.2012 24
The 3 R’s – general principles guiding all experiments with animals
(The principles of humane experimental technique, Russel & Burch, 1959)
R’s Explanation
Replacement Effort to replace subjects with nonanimal ones or modelswhenever possible to do so while still achieving the scientific objectives.
Reduction Effort to reduce the number of animals used in the experiment to the lowest number of individuals necessaryto achieve the aims of the experiment and statisticalpower.
Refinement Effort to design and conduct the study by using anyapproach which avoids or minimises the actual orpotential pain, distress and other adverse effectsexperienced at any time during the life of the animalsinvolved in the use of the studied or developedtechnology, and which enhances their well‐being.
7.10.2012 25
Example how to approach ethical issues – Ethical Matrixhttp://www.nottingham.ac.uk/bioethics/theory_pages/matrix.htm
Respect for Wellbeing (healthand welfare)
Autonomy(freedom/choice)
Justice (fairness)
Targeted organism(e.g. dog)
e.g. Animal welfare; the Five Freedoms
e.g. behavioralfreedom
Inherent speciesbehavior, entitlement to certain provisions
Users (e.g. handler/owner/trainer)
… Freedom to adoptor not adopt
….
Public (e.g. owner, family member, wider public)
… … Knowledge of the real effects
7.10.2012
See Heleski et al. 2012 for a more comprehensive listof methods and examples
26
Code(s) of Ethics, Ethical guidelines• APA – American Psychological Association
– The Committee on Animal Research and Ethics (CARE)• ACM – Association for Computing Machinery• IEEE – Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers• MRC. Medical Research Council• National Research Council (NRC)• Animal Behaviour Society• International Society for Applied Ethology
• National, EU etc. laws, regulations, ethical guidelines HAVE TO befollowed whenever using animals in research and studies AND whendeveloping technology! (In Finland see e.g. Evira for laws and regulations)
• NOTE: APA; ACM and IEEE have ethical guidelines and codes of conduct that arerelevant for all research and work in our field
7.10.2012 27
Other sources related to ethical issues in animalrelated research
• Research Design – e.g.APA/CARE
• Reporting of the studies– ABS/ARRIVE guidelines (Kilkenny et al. 2010)
7.10.2012 28
Conclusions• Previous research in related areas (animal cognition and behavior) needs
to be covered for planning and conducting research designs in our field• Expertise on animal behavior, cognition, emotions etc needed, depending
on the focus of the study• Humane treatment of animals is a key issue governing all research and
technology development dealing with animals• The five freedoms as the guiding principles of experience goals
– in research designs and in technology development
• Assessment of animal’s experience based on– Observations of behavioral changes, reactions, preferences etc.– Physiological measurements– Both psychological and physical well‐being should be assessed
• The three R’s as the principles of humane treatment in research(Reduction, Replacement, Refinement)
• Laws, regulations, ethical guidelines, etc. guide and govern the researchwith animals
7.10.2012 29
ReferencesAPA CARE. 2012. Guidelines for the use of nonhuman animals in behavioral profects in schools (K‐12). Draft. www.apa.org/science/leadership/care/animal‐guideline.pdfBritt, W.R., Miller, J. Waggoner, P., Bevly, D.M., Hamilton, J.A. 2011. An embedded system for real‐time navigation and remote command of a trained canine. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 15, 1 (2011), 61‐74.Cheok, A.D., Tan, R.T.K.C., Peiris, R.L., Fernando, O.N.N., Soon, J.T.K., Wijesena, I.J.P., Sen, J.Y.P. 2011. Metazao Ludens: Mixed‐reality interaction and play for small pets and humans. IEEE Transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics – part A: systems and humans, 41, 5, pp. 876‐891.Committee on Recognition and Alleviation of Distress in Laboratory Animals, National Research Council. Recognition and Alleviation of Distress in Laboratory Animals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.FAWC. Farm Animal Welfare Committee. The Five Freedoms. http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/about/five‐freedoms/Heleski, C.R., Anthony, R. 2012. Science alone is not always enough: The importance of ethicalassessment for a more comprehensive view of equine welfare. J of Veterinary Behavior, 7, 169‐178.Kilkenny, C., Browne, W.J., Cuthill, I.C., Emerson, M., Altman, D.G. 2010. The ARRIVE guidelines Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments. PLoS Biology, June 2010. http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1206&page=1357&skin=0
7.10.2012 30
ReferencesLee, S.P., Cheok, A.D., James, T.K.S., Debra, G.P.L., Jie, C.W., Chuang, W., Farbiz, F. 2006. A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality systems for human‐poultry interaction through the internet. Personal Ubiquitous Comput. 10, 5 (2006), 301‐317. Pirjo Lehtinen, Katariina Mäki: Luonnetesti koiranjalostuksen apuvälineenä, HETI 1, 19‐25, 2005MRC. Medical Research Council position statement on research regulation and ethics. 2005. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/consumption/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=5520&dDocName=MRC002462&allowInterrupt=1NRC, National Research Council. Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random Source Dogs and Cats in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.Racca, A., Amadei, E. Ligour, S.,Guo,K., Meints, K., Mills, D. Discrimination of human and dog faces and inversion responses in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Animal cognition, 13(3) (2010), 525‐533.Resner, B.I. Rover@Home: Computer mediated remote interaction between humans and dogs. M.Sc. Thesis, MIT, 2001. Russell, W.M.S., Burch, R.L 1959. The principles of Humane Experimental Technique. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, UK.
7.10.2012 31
ReferencesStrandberg, E. Jacobsson, J., Saetre, P. 2005. Direct genetic, maternal and litter effects on behaviour in German shepherd dogs in Sweden, Livestock production science, 93, 33‐42.Svartberg, K. 2006. Breed‐typical behaviour in dogs – Historical remnants or recent constructs? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 293‐313.Svartberg, K. Personality in Dogs, PhD Thesis, Uppsala, Sweden, 2003.Svartberg, K, Forkman, B. 2002. Personality traits in the domestic dog (Canis familiaris), Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 133‐155Väätäjä, H., Pesonen, E. 2012. Please, Don’t drive me nuts! Experience goals for dogs. Workshop on ”How to utilize user experience goals in design?”, NordiCHI2012. Link to paperunder workshop papers listing at https://sites.google.com/site/helivaataja/publications
7.10.2012 32