ACI/Animal Informatics Projects
1) Beyond the Camera Trap: A Systematic Review of Computing Technology Used to Monitor and Interact with (More) Varied Taxa in Zoos and Aquariums
About the Project
Zoos and aquariums house a wide range of species, yet research remains heavily skewed toward mammals and camera-based technologies. This systematic literature review examines the use of computing technologies to monitor or interact with animals in zoos, aquariums, or wildlife parks, with a focus on taxonomic representation and technological diversity. A total of 125 studies published between 2014 and 2024 met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 151 recorded instances of technology use. Cameras and video systems were the most frequently used tools, appearing alone in 40% of studies and in combination with other technologies in an additional 18.4%, accounting for 48.3% of all technology instances. Most studies focused on only mammals (73.5%), and behavioral monitoring was the most common research aim (40.9%). These findings suggest an uneven distribution of research shaped more by convenience and familiarity than by welfare need, highlighting a critical opportunity to diversify both species focus and technological application. Increased investment in underrepresented species and underutilized tools will help ensure that research better reflects the full spectrum of animal needs and experiences.…
Publications
Hassinger, L., & Nippert-Eng, C. (2025). Beyond the Camera Trap: A Systematic Review of Computing Technology Used to Monitor and Interact with (More) Varied Taxa in Zoos and Aquariums. Animals, 15(12), 1721. Link.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Department of Informatics at Indiana University, Bloomington for its support.
2) “Choice” and “Control” in ACI Publications: A Systematic Review of Language Use Across Relational Contexts
About the Project
Providing animals with meaningful “choice” and “control” is a central goal in Animal–Computer Interaction (ACI), but whether and how researchers describe these concepts varies across contexts. We reviewed 94 live-animal papers published between 2016–2024 in the Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Animal–Computer Interaction and found that only 37.2% used the words “choice” or “control” explicitly. All studies involving zoo and sanctuary animals included some form of reference to these concepts, while just 57.1% of companion-animal papers and 52.8% of working-animal papers made mention of them—either directly or indirectly. We suggest these patterns in ACI publications reflect the broad differences in institutional norms and human-animal relationships that we enact in our research. We further suggest that relational approaches to ACI – like becoming with and dignity-based perspectives – offer useful frameworks for incorporating more detailed reporting about choice and control in our work.
Publications
McGraw, E., McNames, M., Wagoner, I., Brey, L., & Nippert-Eng, C. (2025, December). ‘Choice’ and ‘Control’ in ACI Publications: A Systematic Review of Language Use Across Relational Contexts. In Proceedings of the ACM 12th International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (pp. 1-15). Link.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Department of Informatics at Indiana University, Bloomington for its support.
3) Dogs or not dogs? Examining ACI authors' reporting on animal participants' willingness to engage in research: a spotlight on mediated and contingent consent
About the Project
How do Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI) researchers working with live animal participants assess the animals’ willingness to participate in their research? In this paper we present the results of a systematic literature review designed to answer this question by examining the Proceedings of the ACM International Animal Computer Interaction Conference. From 2016-2022, these proceedings included 38 full papers that reported results from research with live animal participants. We found 1) only 74% or 28/38 of the papers reported how they assessed animal participants’ willingness to engage during their research, 2) the authors of papers focused on species other than dogs had a much higher rate of providing this information than did the authors of dog-based studies (100% or 12/12 non-dog papers v 62% or 16/26 of dog-based papers), 3) most researchers who addressed the issue of an animal participant’s willingness to engage in the research relied on some form of mediated consent, informed by behavioral observation methods, to do so. However, the researchers focused on non-dog species were much more likely than researchers focused on dogs to include elements of contingent consent in their protocols (75% (9/12) of the non-dog studies v 12% (3/26) of the dog-related studies). We argue that providing each other with more details about our research methods and possibly more fully embracing the principles of contingent consent would further ACI researchers’ existing ethical commitment to our animal participants, increase our adherence to standard scientific research practice, and accelerate the continued development of the field of Animal-Computer Interaction.
Publications
McGraw, E. B., Bosco, C., Brey, L., & Nippert-Eng, C. (2023, December). Dogs or not dogs? Examining ACI authors' reporting on animal participants' willingness to engage in research: a spotlight on mediated and contingent consent. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (pp. 1-13). Link.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Department of Informatics at Indiana University, Bloomington for its support.