Advertisement

Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 301–317 | Cite as

A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for human–poultry interaction through the internet

  • Shang Ping Lee
  • Adrian David CheokEmail author
  • Teh Keng Soon James
  • Goh Pae Lyn Debra
  • Chio Wen Jie
  • Wang Chuang
  • Farzam Farbiz
Original Article

Abstract

Poultry are one of the most badly treated animals in the modern world. It has been shown that they have high levels of both cognition and feelings and as a result there has been a recent trend of promoting poultry welfare. There is also a tradition of keeping poultry as pets in some parts of the world. However, in modern cities and societies, it is often difficult to maintain contact with pets, particularly for office workers. We propose and describe a novel cybernetics system to use mobile and Internet technology to improve human–pet interaction. It can also be used for people who are allergic to touching animals and thus cannot stroke them directly. This interaction encompasses both visualization and tactile sensation of real objects.

Keywords

Multimodal interaction Mobile computing Mixed reality Cybernetics Haptic interfaces Wearable devices 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the reviewers and editors for their excellent reviews, comments, and feedback. We also wish to kindly thank George Karolyi, founder of the Animal Liberation Society in Adelaide, Australia, for all his great advice.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    People who like fake dogs. npr. all things considered. Interview with Sherry Turkle of MIT Media Labs. Discusses relationships with Sony’s AIBO and other ’computational objects’, May 11 2001Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behrens D (1997) Keeping up with the tamagotchis/a report on virtual pets and knockoff reality. NewsdayGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bell G, Brooke T, Churchill E, Paulos E (2003) Intimate (ubiquitous) computing. In: Workshop in 5th international conference on ubiquitous computing, Seattle, WA, October 2003Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bergesen F (1989) The effects of pet facilitated therapy on the self-esteem and socialization of primary school children. In: Paper presented at the 5th international conference on the relationship between humans and animals, Monaco, 1989Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brave S, Ishii H, Dahley A (1998) Tangible interfaces for remote collaboration and communication. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer supported cooperative work, pp 169–178, 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burch M (1994) The world’s best therapists have wet noses. Bloodlines 76:52–54Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burch M (1999) Animal-assisted therapy and crack babies: A new frontierGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang A, O’Modhrain S, Jacob R, Gunther E, Ishii H (2002) Comtouch: design of a vibrotactile communication device. In: Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, London, England, pp 312–320, June 25–28 2002Google Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Dawkins MS, Beardsley TM (1986) Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Appl Anim Behav 15:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dodge C (1997) The bed: a medium for intimate communication. In: Extended abstracts of CHI’97, ACM Press, pp 371–372Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Druin A (1999) Designing pets: a personal electronic teller of stories. In: Proceeding of the CHI 99 conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 326–329, May 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duncan IJH (1996) Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agricolae Scandinavia, Sect. A, Anim Sci 27:29–35Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duncan IJH (2002) Poultry welfare: science or subjectivity? Br Poult Sci 43:643–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duncan IJH, Kite VG (1987) Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci 18:387–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duncan IJH, Petherick JC (1991) The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J Anim Sci 69:5017–5022PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farbiz F, Cheok AD, Zhou Z et al (2004) Live 3-dimensional content for augmented reality. IEEE Trans MultimediaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Forkman B (2000) Domestic hens have declarative representations. Anim Cogn 3:135–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fujita M, Kitano H, Kageyama K (1998) Reconfigurable physical agents. In: Proceedings of the second international conference of autonomous agents, pp 54–61, May 1998Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    GoldbergK, Wallace R (1993). Denta dentata. In: Visual proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’93Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hafner K, Cenicola T (1999) As robot pets and dolls multiply, children react in new ways to things that are ’almost alive. The New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hughes B, Black A (1973) The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. Br Poult Sci 14:615–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of CHI 97, Atlanta, GA, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago IIGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jones R, Larkens C, Hughes B (1996) Approach/avoidance responses of domestic chicks to familiar and unfamiliar video images of biological neutral stimuli. Appl Anim Behav Sci 48:81–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kageyama Y Robots seen as companions for elderly. http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/world/2004/robot.htm
  30. 30.
    Lee S, Buxton W, Smith K (1985) A multi-touch three dimensional touch-sensitive tablet. In: Proceedings of the CHI’85 conference on human factors in computing systems, San Franscisco, CA, pp, April 1985 21–25Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levinson B (2001) The child and his pet: A world of non-verbal communication. In: Corson S, Corson E, Alexander J (eds) Ethnology and non-verbal communication in mental health. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 63–83Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Murray AM, Klatzky RL, Khosla PK (2003) Psychophysical characterization and testbed validation of a wearable vibrotactile glove for telemanipulation. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 12(2):156–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nicol C, Pope S (1994) Social learning in small flocks of laying hens. Anim Behav 47:1289–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nitzshce N, Haneback V, Schmidt G (2001) Mobile haptic interaction with extended real or virtual environments. In: Proceedings of international workshop on robot and human interactive communication, pp 313–318Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oakley I, Brewster S, Gray P (2001) Communicating with feeling. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2058. Berlin, pp 61–68Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paulos E (2003) Connexus: A communal interface. In: ACM designing for user experiences (DUX) Conference, San Francisco, CA, June 2003Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rekimoto J (2002) Smartskin: An infrastructure for freehand manipulation of interactive surfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing system: changing our world, changing ourselves, Minneapolis, Minnesota, pp 113–120, April 2002Google Scholar
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Ros W (1990) Sociale steun bijkanker-patienten. PhD thesis, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sekiguchi D (2001) Robotphone: Rui for interpersonal communication. In: SIGGRAPH 2001 emerging technology, pp 134Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Slater P (1990) Pursuit of Loneliness. Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    White N, Back D (1986) Telephonic arm wrestling shown at the strategic arts initiative symposium http://www.bmts.com/norrmil/artpage.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shang Ping Lee
    • 1
  • Adrian David Cheok
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Teh Keng Soon James
    • 1
  • Goh Pae Lyn Debra
    • 1
  • Chio Wen Jie
    • 1
  • Wang Chuang
    • 1
  • Farzam Farbiz
    • 1
  1. 1.Mixed Reality LabNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Interaction and Entertainment Research Center, Mixed Reality Lab Nanyang Techonological UniversitySingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations