Advertisement

Stimulus Control for Semi-autonomous Computer Canine-Training

  • John J. MajikesEmail author
  • Sherrie Yuschak
  • Katherine Walker
  • Rita Brugarolas
  • Sean Mealin
  • Marc Foster
  • Alper Bozkurt
  • Barbara Sherman
  • David L. Roberts
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10384)

Abstract

For thousands of years, humans have domesticated and trained dogs to perform tasks for them. Humans have developed areas of study, such as Applied Behavior Analysis, which aim to improve the training process. We introduce a semi-autonomous, canine-training system by combining existing research in Applied Behavior Analysis with computer systems consisting of hardware, software, audio, and visual components. These components comprise a biohybrid system capable of autonomously training a dog to perform a specific behavior on command. In this paper we further our previous computer canine-training system by the application of stimulus control over a newly-acquired, free operant behavior. This system uses light and sound as a discriminative stimulus for the behavior of a dog pushing a button with its nose. Indications of simple stimulus control of this behavior were achieved. Our pilot of this system indicates canine learning comparable to that from a professional dog trainer.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Bob Bailey and Parvene Farhoody for input into the experimental design. We would like to thank Wes Anderson of Smart Animal Training for early access to the Pet Tutor dispensor. We would also like to thank Paws4Ever dog sanctuary for the use of their facilities, for access to their dogs, and to their volunteers. This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation under the Cyber Physical Systems Program (IIS-1329738).

References

  1. 1.
    Bailey, B., Farhoody, P.: Bailey-farhoody discrimination workshop. http://behaviormatters.com/workshops/
  2. 2.
    Brugarolas, R., Loftin, R.T., Yang, P., Roberts, D.L., Sherman, B., Bozkurt, A.: Behavior recognition based on machine learning algorithms for a wireless canine machine interface. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Body Sensor Networks (BSN), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brugarolas, R., Roberts, D., Sherman, B., Bozkurt, A.: Machine learning based posture estimation for a wireless canine machine interface. In: 2013 IEEE Topical Conference on Biomedical Wireless Technologies, Networks, and Sensing Systems (BioWireleSS), pp. 10–12. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornou, C., Lundbye-Christensen, S.: Classifying sows activity types from acceleration patterns: an application of the multi-process Kalman filter. Appl. Animal Behav. Sci. 111(3), 262–273 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galbicka, G.: Shaping in the 21st century: moving percentile schedules into applied settings. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 27(4), 739–760 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerencsér, L., Vásárhelyi, G., Nagy, M., Vicsek, T., Miklósi, A.: Identification of behaviour in freely moving dogs (Canis familiaris) using inertial sensors. PlOS One 8(10), 1–14 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hiby, E., Rooney, N., Bradshaw, J.: Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welf. Potters Bar Then Wheathampstead 13(1), 63–70 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ladha, C., Hammerla, N., Hughes, E., Olivier, P., Plötz, T.: Dog’s life: wearable activity recognition for dogs. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 415–418. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Majikes, J., Brugarolas, R., Winters, M., Yuschak, S., Mealin, S., Walker, K., Yang, P., Sherman, B., Bozkurt, A., Roberts, D.L.: Balancing noise sensitivity, response latency, and posture accuracy for a computer-assisted canine posture training system. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 98, 179–195 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazur, J.E.: Learning and Behavior. Psychology Press, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McLeod, S.: BF skinner: operant conditioning (2007). Accessed 9 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moreau, M., Siebert, S., Buerkert, A., Schlecht, E.: Use of a tri-axial accelerometer for automated recording and classification of goats grazing behaviour. Appl. Animal Behav. Sci. 119(3), 158–170 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pi, S.: Problems with the HC-SR04 ultrasonic sensor. http://randomnerdtutorials.com/complete-guide-for-ultrasonic-sensor-hc-sr04/
  14. 14.
    Pi, S.: Problems with the HC-SR04 ultrasonic sensor. https://www.raspberrypi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=77534
  15. 15.
    Preece, S.J., Goulermas, J.Y., Kenney, L.P., Howard, D., Meijer, K., Crompton, R.: Activity identification using body-mounted sensors: a review of classification techniques. Physiol. Meas. 30(4), R1 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Savolainen, P., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., Lundeberg, J., Leitner, T.: Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298(5598), 1610–1613 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wrigglesworth, D.J., Mort, E.S., Upton, S.L., Miller, A.T.: Accuracy of the use of triaxial accelerometry for measuring daily activity as a predictor of daily maintenance energy requirement in healthy adult labrador retrievers. Am. J. Vet. Res. 72(9), 1151–1155 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • John J. Majikes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sherrie Yuschak
    • 2
  • Katherine Walker
    • 3
  • Rita Brugarolas
    • 3
  • Sean Mealin
    • 1
  • Marc Foster
    • 3
  • Alper Bozkurt
    • 3
  • Barbara Sherman
    • 2
  • David L. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Clinical SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations