Outdoors, dog owners can use technology to talk to their pets, track their every move, launch projectile treats into the air, and even spy on them while they sleep.
Dogs themselves can’t do much more than look longingly out the window. Perhaps that’s why the possibility of a “DogPhone” briefly enraptured the media world. Who wouldn’t want to take that call?
But the new research that inspired those stories, led by Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas, an assistant professor at the University of Glasgow, was especially ambitious.
The study involved only one dog. The device wasn’t a real phone, nor was it anything near the market like that. And the results were inconclusive at best.
Using a ball equipped with a motion-detecting device that triggers video calls, Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas, who specializes in interaction between animals and computers, gives her 10-year-old Labrador retriever, Zack, the power to call her by simply being his toy.
“I thought something like that could somehow help dogs to have more control and choices,” said Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas in an interview. “We decide so much about their lives that it might be exciting in itself to have this choice alone.”
The research, published last month in the ACM’s journal Proceedings on Human-Computer Interaction, took place over the course of 16 days, with variations in the device’s sensitivity. Zack is not trained to use the so-called DogPhone, the researchers said.
During the experiment, Zack called Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas about five times a day and a total of more than 50 times. Nearly all of the phone calls appeared to have been made by accident, the study said.
“Dog was playing with his pig and accidentally bumped the ball,” reads the record of a 30-second conversation.
“Dog accidentally called (climbed on couch) then went to sleep,” reads the following, lasting 16 seconds.
And in dozens of phone calls, the dog was asleep when it pushed the motion sensor into action. “Dog sleeps cuddling with the ball.”
A leading animal behaviorist, Dr. Patricia McConnell, was skeptical about the study. “A sample of one — one person and one dog — is not a study,” said Dr. McConnell, “and I wish more effort had been put into teaching the dog to use the device rather than hoping he would find out.”
But she said the authors were “to be commended for their interest in finding ways to give dogs more choice in their lives, especially when left home alone.”
She said the study raises interesting issues. “Do our dogs want to hear from us when we’re not home? Or would they say, ‘Don’t call me, I’ll call you?’”
In the paper, Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas and her colleagues pushed their limits in understanding what a dog meant or didn’t mean to do. “We humans may not know what an animal’s intentions are, or how they would intentionally interact with computer systems,” they wrote.
In the final days of the study, Zack’s interactions were longer and he called more often, whatever his intentions were.
During their video calls, Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas Zack talked about her day and about upcoming visits to the dog park. He was especially engaged, she said, as she flipped her camera to show him the city she was walking through, past buskers and commuting underground.
He wasn’t always so involved. “Dog called me but was not interested in our call, but checked for things in his bed,” wrote Dr. Hirskyj-Douglas on a phone call. “He was busy elsewhere.”
She noted that Zack never answered when she called.
dr. Hirskyj-Douglas said that while her research didn’t reveal what Zack intended to do, it did show that dogs could use an interactive digital device like hers, given the opportunity.
“It doesn’t always have to be these passive users of the technology we make, and yet all the technology that comes out usually is passive use,” she said, adding that her research “showed that the future of canine technology is very different from it now.” is.”
The pet surveillance industry is booming. As products featuring cameras, speakers, and GPS devices emerge, more and more pet owners are turning to devices that allow them to be with their pets even when they are not physically in the room.
Last year, the market value for pet technology was $5.5 billion, according to an industry report from research firm Global Market Insights, which predicts the market will grow to more than $20 billion by 2027. Best-selling products include collars and toys equipped with GPS trackers.
dr. Hirskyj-Douglas said technology like her device, which was not developed for sale, could potentially help reduce isolation and separation anxiety in pets — a problem many pet owners have noticed over the course of the coronavirus pandemic.
Experts said it was unclear to what extent canine technology products could help.
dr. McConnell, a retired professor from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Dr. Andrea Y. Tu, a behavioral veterinarian who was also not involved in the study, said very little research had been done on technology for dogs.
Current products on the market, such as video cameras, can be great for some pets but can cause more anxiety in others, they said. They also noted inconclusive research on whether dogs could fully recognize human faces on screens.
“Dogs are so variable, they’re just like us,” said Dr. McConnell. She said she was fascinated to see more research into pets’ freedom of choice and autonomy, and how it could change human relationships with dogs.
dr. Hirskyj-Douglas, who assigned the research to her dog, said she hoped there would be a shift towards using network devices to expand a pet’s world and provide a greater sense of freedom.
“I’m a crazy dog lady who would love to see more dog-controlled technology,” she said.
