A Vibrotactile Vest for Remote Human-Dog Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dogs have been helping humans in different ways since prehistoric times. Modern working dogs perform tasks ranging from search-and-rescue to bomb detection, but relatively little work has been done on the use of technology with working dogs. Therefore, communication with working dogs is still predominantly visual and audial. In this paper, we introduce a vest with four embedded vibration motors in specially designed motor housings. The vest applies vibrotactile cues to the dog that wears it, and the dog is trained to associate the cues with practical commands. The commands are issued to the vest from a handler with a wireless remote. We demonstrate the vest using a test subject: a six year old male Labrador Retriever/German Shepherd Dog crossbreed. We test the perception threshold of the test subject to haptic cues, and its proficiency in understanding several haptic cues. These cues differ in location and/or waveform. Our case study shows that the dog was able to successfully learn haptic commands in this way. This apparatus may prove beneficial for search and rescue purposes, working dog operation, training deaf dogs, and training by handlers with speech impairments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".