Animal-Computer Interaction Technologies Offer Hope For Better Welfare

Animal-computer interaction (ACI) is the study of how animals interact with computer-based systems. Although the field has roots in early- to mid-20th-century behavioral science, it only became established after Clara Mancini published her influential paper, “Animal-Computer Interaction: A Manifesto,” in 2011. Recently, researchers have explored ways in which ACI technologies can be used to improve animal welfare.

In this review, the authors present their agency-centered perspective on animal welfare and offer examples of how ACI technologies are increasing the agency of animals in zoos, farms, homes, and laboratories, arguing that this results in better lives for captive animals.

Agency Is Central To Animal Welfare

The authors define animal welfare as the capacity to have positive and negative experiences — from obvious ones such as pleasure and pain to less obvious ones such as curiosity and nausea. Higher welfare, they argue, can be achieved via greater agency. When animals are free to pursue and satisfy their needs and wants, they can increase their positive experiences.

Agency can enhance welfare in two ways:

• Directly, when the act of exercising control is itself satisfying (such as switching an enclosure light on or off, regardless of the default setting); and
• Indirectly, when agency is used to obtain something preferred (such as activating a shower rather than waiting for a caregiver to spray them with a hose).

ACI Technologies Can Lead To Higher Animal Welfare

The authors demonstrate how ACI technologies can boost agency through providing animals with:

• Choice and control over their environment;
• Choice and control over their social interactions; and
• Opportunities for cognitive challenge.

These technologies include touchscreens, video-calling systems, word soundboards, lexigram keyboards, motion or chip-activated sensors, and automated feeding or milking systems. Most examples come from zoos due to their well-established connection to environmental enrichment research, though the authors note cases from labs, farms, and homes.

Environmental Agency

Animals in zoos are often provided with lighting and sound that mimic their natural environment, but these are dictated by human caretakers. One study sought to change this: a saki monkey enclosure was equipped with tubes that, simply by entering them, the monkeys could use to trigger different audio or video tracks, choosing what played and when. In agriculture, some dairy farms have provided cows with automated milking robots, giving them control over when they want to be milked.

Social Agency

Socializing is a core need for many species. Parrots are one example, yet they’re often kept as solo companions. One study aimed to alleviate loneliness in companion parrots by providing them with video-calling equipment to call other parrots. Dogs, too, have been given soundboards containing buttons that trigger pre-recorded words such as ‘food’ and ‘outside,’ offering them choice over when and what they communicate. Such interspecies communication devices address a common problem: humans can easily overlook or misread animal cues.

Cognitive Challenge

Much of this comes through games. At Zoo Atlanta, scientists equipped an orangutan enclosure with touchscreens where the apes could play matching games for food rewards. Later, when they were given a painting game, they chose to play even without a reward, demonstrating their desire to play for its own sake. At the National Aquarium in Baltimore, dolphins used touchscreens to play a Whack-a-Mole-type game with virtual fishes.

Benefits Of ACI Technologies

When designed and implemented well, ACI can provide benefits beyond the examples described above. Our busy schedules and diurnal lifestyle mean we often can’t care for animals to the standard they require. An ACI-enriched environment can offer what’s been called a ‘24/7’ approach to welfare, meeting animal needs regardless of caregiver presence — something particularly relevant to nocturnal species.

ACI technologies can also mitigate boredom in captivity, while cognitive challenges help animals build skills for future use, expanding the welfare-improving options available to them.

Limitations Of ACI Technologies

The authors also mention the hurdles of ACI, and offer some solutions.

• Public perception: The public might regard ACI interventions as unnatural or as detracting from immersive zoo experiences. The authors argue that the needs of animals should come before what we deem natural — after all, captive animals benefit from unnatural interventions such as medicines. In practice, visitors reacted positively to the screen-tapping orangutans at Zoo Atlanta.
• Substitution: The authors warn against using ACI to replace other important welfare interventions. Digital playmates can’t replace real ones, nor can virtual challenges offer the benefits of physical ones.
• Expense: From design to repair, ACI can be prohibitively expensive, and farmers in particular face pressure to keep prices low. The authors recommend that institutions choose technologies based on what’s affordable in their context, while noting that simpler devices such as automated brushes can also improve welfare.
• Human-centric design: Our ideas of what’s best for animals may not reflect reality. In the saki monkey study, for instance, the monkeys surprised researchers by choosing traffic sounds. But while animals can’t directly co-create technology with us, what we learn about them can influence design.
• Usage constraints: Just as we manage our own screen time, we may need to do so for animals — via automatic lockouts, for example. Intense competition over devices has also been observed, and some technologies may suit solo animals better than groups.

A Brighter Future For Captive Animals?

The authors identify several potential future benefits to ACI technologies. The data we gather from social interaction and cognitive tasks can expand our knowledge of animal intelligence, potentially revealing unexpected capacities.

Data can also drive better technologies offering a wider range of choice. For the video-calling parrots, for instance, the authors suggest letting the birds choose whether to receive calls in the first place. The authors even argue that captive animals in highly enriched environments could experience higher welfare than their wild counterparts.

What Advocates Can Do

The opportunity is ripe for animal advocates to engage in ACI. Zoologists, ethologists, animal ethicists, policymakers, and researchers in virtual reality, sensor tech, and machine learning are all needed to keep animal welfare top of mind. However, there are some points for advocates to consider:

• Justify captivity first. Before considering ACI, caregivers must be able to justify captivity in the first place. Offering dolphins touchscreens may fractionally improve their welfare, but many regard keeping dolphins in captivity as fundamentally unethical. No ACI intervention should replace other critical ones, and providing welfare opportunities in captivity isn’t equivalent to an enriched life in the wild.
• Know that welfare and impact differ greatly across contexts. There’s a world of difference between a parrot being able to call another parrot and a cow ‘choosing when to be milked’ on an industrial farm where her welfare may be chronically low. What’s more, if ACI is widely implemented in industrial farming, any welfare improvements could be used to justify the continuation of factory farming.
• Use ACI to expose speciesism. Initially, we may think threatened zoo species deserve more intervention than farmed animals. But this is a mark of speciesism — valuing certain species over others. If our concern were reducing the suffering of as many animals as possible, there should be vastly more research on ACI-aided intervention on farms than in zoos. We should keep examining our reasons for helping certain animals over others, even when the questions make us uncomfortable.