skip to main content
10.1145/3152771.3156142acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Supporting animal welfare with automatic tracking of giraffes with thermal cameras

Published:28 November 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Externally observing of animal behaviour is an essential method for understanding and improving captive animal welfare, but is limited by observer subjectivity and high-labour costs, and is not embedded in day-to-day care. In this paper, we present a solution via a system that utilizes a single thermal camera to automatically locate giraffes within their enclosure, matching human estimation accuracy. We present an account of the development of this system, our approach, and an evaluation through focus-group interviews with zoo-keepers which provide insight into the most appropriate visualisation methods, and the future opportunities for automatic tracking technologies to support husbandry practices, zoo visitor experiences, and conservation education.

References

  1. Tucker Balch, Zia Khan and Manuela Veloso. 2001. Automatically Tracking and Analyzing the Behavior of Live Insect Colonies. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents. ACM, 521--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ben Benfold and Ian Reid. 2011. Stable Multi-Target Tracking in Real-Time Surveillance Video. In Proceedings of Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2011 IEEE Conference on. IEEE, 3457--3464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Danielle D Brown, Roland Kays, Martin Wikelski, Rory Wilson and A Peter Klimley. 2013. Observing the Unwatchable through Acceleration Logging of Animal Behavior. Animal Biotelemetry 1, 20, 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Marcus Carter, Sarah Webber and Sally Sherwen. 2015. Naturalism and Aci: Augmenting Zoo Enclosures with Digital Technology. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. ACM, Iskandar, Malaysia, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Leonie Dreschler and Hans-Hellmut Nagel. 1982. Volumetric Model and 3d Trajectory of a Moving Car Derived from Monocular Tv Frame Sequences of a Street Scene. Computer Graphics and Image Processing 20, 3, 199--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Fiona French, Mark Kingston-Jones, David T. Schaller, Sarah Ellen Webber, Heli Väätäjä and Mark Campbell. 2016. Don't Cut to the Chase: Hunting Experiences for Zoo Animals and Visitors. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. ACM, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Yoav Freund and Robert E Schapire. 1997. A Decision-Theoretic Generalization of on-Line Learning and an Application to Boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 55, 1, 119--139. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Victor Gan, Peter Carr and Joseph Soltis. 2015. Monitoring Giraffe Behavior in Thermal Video. In Proceedings of Applications and Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW). IEEE, 36-43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Charlotte E Hacker, Kristina M Horback and Lance J Miller. 2015. Gps Technology as a Proxy Tool for Determining Relationships in Social Animals: An Example with African Elephants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 163, 1, 175--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ismail Haritaoglu, David Harwood and Larry S. Davis. 2000. W/Sup 4: Real-Time Surveillance of People and Their Activities. IEEE Transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 22, 8, 809--830. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. N.F.H Hermans and J.H. Eggen. Year. Beyond Barriers: Exploring Opportunities of Digital Technology to Encourage Personal Interaction between Captive Orangutans and Zoo Visitors. In Proceedings of CHI 2016 Workshop: HCI Goes to the Zoo. ACM, 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S Hilsberg. 2002. Clinical Application of Infrared-Thermography in Inflammation Diagnosis in Mega-Herbivores. In Proceedings of European Association of Zoo and Wildlife Veterinarians 4th Scientific Meeting. EAZWV, Heidelberg Germany, 315--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Kristina Marie Horback, Lance Joseph Miller, Jeffrey Andrews, Stanley Abraham Kuczaj and Matthew Anderson. 2012. The Effects of Gps Collars on African Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) Behavior at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 142, 1, 76--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Mark P Johnson and Peter L Tyack. 2003. A Digital Acoustic Recording Tag for Measuring the Response of Wild Marine Mammals to Sound. IEEE journal of oceanic engineering 28, 1, 3--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Johannes Karisson, Keni Ren, Peter Björk and Johan Haake. 2016. Digital Zoo - a Testbed for an Interactive Zoo at Lycksele Zoo. In Proceedings of CHI 2016 Workshop: HCI Goes to the Zoo. ACM, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Les Kitchen and Azriel Rosenfeld. 1982. Gray-Level Corner Detection. Pattern Recognition Letters 1, 2, 95--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Bethany L. Krebs and Jason V. Watters. 2016. Using Technology Driven Environments to Promote Animal Well-Being in Zoos. In Proceedings of CHI 2016 Workshop: HCI Goes to the Zoo. ACM, 1--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Clara Mancini. 2011. Animal-Computer Interaction: A Manifesto. Interactions 18, 4, 69--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. D. Marr, S. Ullman and T. Poggio. 1979. Bandpass Channels, Zero-Crossings, and Early Visual Information Processing. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69, 6, 914--916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. GJ Mason and J Mench. 1997. Using Behaviour to Assess Animal Welfare. In Animal Welfare, M Appleby and B. O. Hughes Eds. CAB International, Wallingford, 127--141.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. Mitchell and J. D. Skinner. 2004. Giraffe Thermoregulation: A Review. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 59, 2, 109--118.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Irenilza de A. Nääs, Marcus Laganá, Mario Mollo Neto, Simone Canuto and Danilo F. Pereira. 2012. Image Analysis for Assessing Broiler Breeder Behavior Response to Thermal Environment. Engenharia Agrícola 32, 4, 624--632.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Steve North, Carol Hall, Amanda L. Roshier and Clara Mancini. Year. Habit: Horse Automated Behaviour Identification Tool: A Position Paper. In Proceedings of ACI@BHCI (Animal Computer Interaction Workshop), British HCI. BCS, 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kenton O'Hara, Tim Kindberg, Maxine Glancy, Luciana Baptista, Byju Sukumaran, Gil Kahana and Julie Rowbotham. 2007. Collecting and Sharing Location-Based Content on Mobile Phones in a Zoo Visitor Experience. Comput. Supported Coop. Work 16, 1-2, 11--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Junichi Okuyama, Kana Nakajima, Kenta Matsui, Yuichi Nakamura, Kazuaki Kondo, Takahiro Koizumi and Nobuaki Arai. 2015. Application of a Computer Vision Technique to Animal-Borne Video Data: Extraction of Head Movement to Understand Sea Turtles' Visual Assessment of Surroundings. Animal Biotelemetry 3, 1, 35.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Constantine Papageorgiou, Michael Oren and Tomaso A. Poggio. 1998. A General Framework for Object Detection. In Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, Bombay, 555--562. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Mansi Parikh, Miral Patel and Dulari Bhatt. 2013. Animal Detection Using Template Matching Algorithm. International Journal of Research in Modern Engineering and Emerging Technology 1, 3, 26--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Patricia Pons, Marcus Carter and Javier Jaen. 2016. Sound to Your Objects: A Novel Design Approach to Evaluate Orangutans' Interest in Sound-Based Stimuli. In Proceedings of Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. ACM, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Patricia Pons, Javier Jaen and Alejandro Catala. 2015. Envisioning Future Playful Interactive Environments for Animals. In More Playful User Interfaces: Interfaces That Invite Social and Physical Interaction, Anton Nijholt Ed. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 121--150.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Sarah E Ritvo and Suzanne E MacDonald. 2016. Music as Enrichment for Sumatran Orangutans (Pongo Abelii). Journal of Zoo and Aquarium Research 4, 3, 156--163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. J. B. I. Rousseau, P. B. A. Van Lochem, W. H. Gispen and B. M. Spruijt. 2000. Classification of Rat Behavior with an Image-Processing Method and a Neural Network. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 32, 1, 63--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Jianbo Shi and Carlo Tomasi. 1994. Good Features to Track. In Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 593--600.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Charles Thorpe, Martial Hebert, Takeo Kanade and Steven Shafer. 1989. Vision and Navigation for the Carnegie Mellon Navlab. In High Precision Navigation: Integration of Navigational and Geodetic Methods, Klaus Linkwitz and Ulrich Hangleiter Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 97--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Paul A. Viola and Michael J. Jones. 2001. Rapid Object Detection Using a Boosted Cascade of Simple Features. In Proceedings of IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 511--518.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Athanasios S. Voulodimos, Charalampos Z. Patrikakis, Alexander B. Sideridis, Vasileios A. Ntafis and Eftychia M. Xylouri. 2010. A Complete Farm Management System Based on Animal Identification Using Rfid Technology. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 70, 2, 380--388. http://dx.doi.org/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Sarah Webber, Marcus Carter, Sally Sherwen, Wally Smith, Zaher Joukhadar and Frank Vetere. 2017. Kinecting with Orangutans: Zoo Visitors' Empathetic Responses to Animals? Use of Interactive Technology. In Proceedings of 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA, 6075--6088. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Sarah Webber, Marcus Carter, Wally Smith and Frank Vetere. 2016. Interactive Technology and Human-Animal Encounters at the Zoo. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 98, 1, 150--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Supporting animal welfare with automatic tracking of giraffes with thermal cameras

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      OzCHI '17: Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction
      November 2017
      678 pages
      ISBN:9781450353793
      DOI:10.1145/3152771

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 November 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      OzCHI '17 Paper Acceptance Rate74of157submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader