Sit,Down,Stay! The Comparison of Virtual,Robotic,and Live Entities for Human-Animal and Human-Technology Interactions

Abstract

The advancement of technology has made an immense impact on our society today, explicitly using games as a teaching and training tool. In the current study, researchers examined the perceptual differences between a live, video game, and robotic pet. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three entities and asked to interact with the entity in two different scenarios; free-play and specific training commands. Researchers measured the perceived workload differences for each condition. There are individual differences in perceived mental demand, temporal demand, and performance across the three entity types. The result of this research focuses on comparing individual differences and how they can contribute to or hinder learning and interaction in a live, game based, or robotics scenario. This has important implications for the domain of pet training as well as human-animal and human-technology interactions as a whole.

References

Annetta

A. L.

Folta

Klesath

(2010). Serious games, simulations, and case-based reasoning. In V-Learning (pp. 57-69). New York, NY; Springer Netherlands

Banks

M.R.

Willoughby

L.M.

Banks

W.A.

(2008). Animal-Assisted Therapy and Loneliness in Nursing Homes: Use of Robotic versus Living Dogs. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 9, 173–177.

diSessa

A. A.

Changing Minds: Computers, Learning, and Literacy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000.

Garrity

T.F.

Stallones

Marx

M.B.

Johnson

T.P.

(1987). Pet ownership and attachment as supportive factors in the health of the elderly.Anthrozoös, 3, 35–44.

Gee

J. P.

Why Video Games Are Good For Your Soul: Pleasure and Learning. Melbourne: Common Ground, 2005.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.) Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.

Horowitz

(2008). The Human—Animal Bond: Health Implications Across the Lifespan. Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 14(5), 251-256.

Horowitz

(2010). Animal-Assisted Therapy for Inpatients: Tapping the Unique Healing Power of the Human–Animal Bond. Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 16(6), 339-343.

Kahn

P. H.

Jr. Ishiguro

Friedman

Kanda

Freier

N. G.

Severson

R. L.

Miller

(2007). What is a human? Toward psychological benchmarks in the field of human-robot interaction. Interaction Studies 8(3), 363-390.

10.

Kolb

(2013) Soldier and robot interaction in combat environments. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PsychINFO. (Order No. AAI3524365)

11.

Kramer

S.C.

Friedmann

Bernstein

P.L

(2009). Comparison of the Effect of Human Interaction, Animal-Assisted Therapy, and AIBO-Assisted Therapy on Long-Term Care Residents with Dementia. Anthrozoös, 22(1), 43-57.

12.

Melson

Kahn

Jr. Beck

Friedman

(2009). Robotic pets in human lives: Implications for the human-animal bond and for human relationships with personified technologies. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 545-567.

13.

Miller

S. C.

Kennedy

DeVoe

Hickey

Nelson

Kogan

(2009). An examination of changes in oxytocin levels in men and women before and after interaction with a bonded dog. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 22(1), 31-42.

14.

Pepe

A.A.

Upham Ellis

Sims

V.K.

Chin

M.G.

(2008). Go, dog, go: Maze training AIBO vs. a live dog, an exploratory study. Anthrozoos, 21(1), 71 – 83.