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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

References

  1. 1.

    http://www.w2forum.com/item2.php?id=13630

  2. 2.

    Chickens as pets. http://www.angelfire.com/md3/poultrylovers/pets.html

  3. 3.

    Qt161 datasheet. http://www.qprox.com/products/qt1xx.php

  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 2001

  5. 5.

    Behrens D (1997) Keeping up with the tamagotchis/a report on virtual pets and knockoff reality. Newsday

  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 2003

  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, 1989

  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, 1998

  9. 9.

    Burch M (1994) The world’s best therapists have wet noses. Bloodlines 76:52–54

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Burch M (1999) Animal-assisted therapy and crack babies: A new frontier

  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 2002

  12. 12.

    TT Company http://www.takaratoys.co.jp/bowlingual

  13. 13.

    Dawkins MS, Beardsley TM (1986) Reinforcing properties of access to litter in hens. Appl Anim Behav 15:351–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Dodge C (1997) The bed: a medium for intimate communication. In: Extended abstracts of CHI’97, ACM Press, pp 371–372

  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 1999

  16. 16.

    Duncan IJH (1996) Animal welfare defined in terms of feelings. Acta Agricolae Scandinavia, Sect. A, Anim Sci 27:29–35

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Duncan IJH (2002) Poultry welfare: science or subjectivity? Br Poult Sci 43:643–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Duncan IJH, Kite VG (1987) Some investigations into motivation in the domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci 18:387–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Duncan IJH, Petherick JC (1991) The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. J Anim Sci 69:5017–5022

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Farbiz F, Cheok AD, Zhou Z et al (2004) Live 3-dimensional content for augmented reality. IEEE Trans Multimedia

  21. 21.

    Forkman B (2000) Domestic hens have declarative representations. Anim Cogn 3:135–137

    Article  Google 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 1998

  23. 23.

    GoldbergK, Wallace R (1993). Denta dentata. In: Visual proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’93

  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 Times

  25. 25.

    Hughes B, Black A (1973) The preference of domestic hens for different types of battery cage floor. Br Poult Sci 14:615–619

    Article  Google 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 234–241

  27. 27.

    Johnson M (1987) The body in the mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago II

    Google 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 48:81–98

    Article  Google 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 21–25

  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 63–83

    Google 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):156–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nicol C, Pope S (1994) Social learning in small flocks of laying hens. Anim Behav 47:1289–1296

    Article  Google 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 313–318

  35. 35.

    Oakley I, Brewster S, Gray P (2001) Communicating with feeling. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2058. Berlin, pp 61–68

  36. 36.

    Paulos E (2003) Connexus: A communal interface. In: ACM designing for user experiences (DUX) Conference, San Francisco, CA, June 2003

  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 2002

  38. 38.

    Research I. http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/research/opencv/

  39. 39.

    Ros W (1990) Sociale steun bijkanker-patienten. PhD thesis, Amsterdam

  40. 40.

    Sekiguchi D (2001) Robotphone: Rui for interpersonal communication. In: SIGGRAPH 2001 emerging technology, pp 134

  41. 41.

    Slater P (1990) Pursuit of Loneliness. Beacon Press

    Google 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

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian David Cheok.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, S.P., Cheok, A.D., James, T.K.S. et al. A mobile pet wearable computer and mixed reality system for human–poultry interaction through the internet. Pers Ubiquit Comput 10, 301–317 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-005-0051-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Multimodal interaction
  • Mobile computing
  • Mixed reality
  • Cybernetics
  • Haptic interfaces
  • Wearable devices