Document type: A systematic review of the literature published in Animals
Authors: Liliana Rodríguez-Vizzuett ,Ismael E. Espinosa-Curiel, Humberto Pérez-Espinosa
Preview: For thousands of years, dogs have coexisted with humans and have been adopted as companion pets and working animals. The communication between humans and dogs has improved their coexistence and socialization; however, due to the nature of their activities, dogs and humans occasionally lose face-to-face contact. The purpose of this scoping review is to examine five essential aspects of current technology designed to support intentional communication between humans and dogs in scenarios where there is no face-to-face contact: (1) the technologies used, (2) the activity supported, (3) the interaction modality, (4) the evaluation procedures, and the results obtained, and (5) the main limitations. In addition, this article explores future directions for research and practice. The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were followed when conducting the review. Scopus (Elsevier), Springer-Link, IEEE Xplorer, ACM Digital Library, and Science Direct were used as data sources to retrieve information from January 2010 to March 2022. The titles and abstracts were individually reviewed by the authors (L.R.-V., I.E.E.-C., and H.P.-E.), and the full articles were then examined before a final inclusion determination. 15 (3%) out of the 571 records that were obtained met the requirements for inclusion. The most used technologies for dogs are: (1) 71% of technologies focused on generating messages are wearable devices equipped with sensors (bite, tug, or gesture), (2) 60% of technologies focused on receiving messages are wearable devices equipped with vibrotactile actuators, and (3) 100% of technologies focused on bidirectional communication are videochats. 67% of the works are oriented to support search and assistance tasks. 80% of the works developed technology for one-way communication. 53% of the technologies have a haptic dog interaction modality, that is, there is an object that the dog must wear or manipulate in a certain way. All of the reported evaluations were pilot studies with positive feasibility results. Remote human-dog interaction technology holds significant promise and potential; however, more research is required to assess their usability and efficacy and to incorporate new technological developments.
