Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 78 references

Animal Interaction with Autonomous Mobility Systems: Designing for Multi-Species Coexistence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Animal encounters with autonomous vehicles, drones, and robots cluster into five shared areas of concern—physical impact, behavioral effects, accessibility, ethics and regulation, and urban disturbance—that current design and policy…

desk verdict A transparent, useful mapping of an overlooked intersection; the five-theme convergence is partly built into the method, and a couple of factual slips need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16258 v2 pith:ITC2P2WA submitted 2025-07-22 cs.HC

Tram Thi Minh Tran , Xinyan Yu , Marius Hoggenmueller , Callum Parker , Paul Schmitt , Julie Stephany Berrio Perez , Stewart Worrall , Martin Tomitsch This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords animalswildlifeautonomousvehiclesdeliveryrobotsdronesanimal-computerinteractionmore-than-humandesignmultispeciescoexistence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that animals interacting with autonomous mobility systems—self-driving cars, delivery robots, drones, and lawn-mower robots—are affected in five recurring ways: physical impact (collisions and detection failures), behavioural effects (stress, avoidance, aggression), accessibility concerns (especially for guide dogs and their handlers), ethics and regulations (human-life prioritisation and standards gaps), and urban disturbance (ripple effects on public spaces). To establish this, the authors combine a scoping review of 45 papers, an online ethnography of 39 YouTube videos and 11 Reddit discussions, and interviews with eight experts. The intended contribution is to reframe animals as relational actors rather than edge-case obstacles, and to give designers and policymakers a validated thematic map for multispecies coexistence. If the paper is right, animal welfare becomes a standing input to autonomous-system design and regulation rather than an afterthought.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the multi-method triangulation built around a single five-category thematic framework. A scoping review of 45 papers supplies the academic landscape, an online ethnography of 39 YouTube videos and 11 Reddit discussions supplies real-world encounters and user discussions, and eight expert interviews (ecologists, animal behaviourists, and mobility and ACI researchers) interpret and extend both. The five themes—Physical Impact, Behavioural Effects, Accessibility Concerns, Ethics and Regulations, Urban Disturbance—act as the analytic grid into which all evidence is coded, allowing the authors to compare literature against observed practice and to attach design and policy directions to each area.

What would settle it

Compare the animal collisions and near-misses described in the paper's 39 videos and 11 Reddit discussions against official incident data for the same vehicle models and periods (e.g., NHTSA standing general orders for autonomous vehicles, Waymo incident reports, or Tesla FSD disengagement records). If logged animal encounters are far rarer or qualitatively different—for example, if no stationary-deer night collisions appear in any official record—the Physical Impact theme would be substantially weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the scattered evidence on animal–autonomous mobility interaction converges into five key areas of concern that cut across system types and species. Physical Impact covers collisions and failures to detect, documented in the literature (e.g., hedgehogs injured by robotic lawn mowers) and in user-generated footage (e.g., two Tesla FSD videos showing stationary deer not detected at night). Behavioural Effects covers stress, avoidance, and aggression, such as dogs reacting fearfully to delivery robots and drones provoking defensive attacks from wildlife. Accessibility Concerns centres on service animals: guide dogs disoriented by silent electric vehicles and unpredictable robots, and robotaxi pet policies that exclude emotional support animals. Ethics and Regulations captures the priority given to human life in codes such as the German Ethics Code, the absence of animal protections in safety standards like EN ISO 13482, and speciesist bias in AI. Urban Disturbance covers how robot-triggered animal reactions ripple into blocked sidewalks and disrupted shared spaces. These five themes, layered with expert insights, are offered as a foundation for design and policy to support multispecies coexistence.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's real-world evidence for physical and behavioural impacts rests on unverified YouTube clips and Reddit posts that were never checked against system logs, manufacturer data, or the videographers, so the severity and representativeness of those impacts depend on the accuracy of user-generated accounts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AV perception and planning should treat animals as species-specific actors, not static obstacles, because documented failures include stationary deer missed at night and animals visualised as wrong object classes on in-vehicle displays.
  • External vehicle and robot communication needs to be designed for animal senses; silent electric vehicles already confuse guide dogs judging speed and distance, and high-frequency signals may be ineffective or aversive.
  • Deployment guidelines for drones and delivery robots should account for behavioural stress and defensive aggression observed across many species, with habituation treated as uncertain and species-dependent.
  • Safety standards and regulations for autonomous mobility need explicit animal-welfare provisions, since the current reference standard for personal care robots treats animals as generic safety-related objects without specific protections.
  • Service-animal accessibility requires relational inclusivity: robotaxi pet policies, public stigma, and animals' unease with driverless cabs all need to be addressed for human–animal partnerships to use these systems equally.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the five-theme map could function as a checklist for AV safety cases, e.g., reporting animal near-misses as a standard metric in deployment reporting; the paper implies but does not state this.
  • The inconsistent visualisation of animals (a deer shown as a bird or pedestrian) suggests a testable UI hypothesis: that the way an AV explains its animal detection affects human trust and takeover decisions, which could be studied with driving simulators.
  • The paper's framework implies that perception datasets should be audited for species coverage; since its own data are Northern-Hemisphere centric, trials with Australian species such as wombats and kangaroos would test whether the five themes generalise.
  • If experts' 'habituation is species-specific' observation holds, longitudinal field studies of the same dog populations encountering delivery robots over weeks would be a natural next step that the paper does not conduct.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a multi-method study of how animals interact with autonomous mobility systems, including AVs, drones, delivery robots, and lawn-mower robots. It combines a scoping review of 45 articles, an online ethnography of 39 YouTube videos and 11 Reddit discussions, and 8 expert interviews. The authors identify five thematic areas of concern—Physical Impact, Behavioural Effects, Accessibility Concerns, Ethics and Regulations, and Urban Disturbance—and derive design and policy directions for multispecies coexistence. The central contribution is a thematic map of the problem space plus a set of recommendations for more animal-aware design and regulation.

Significance. If the thematic map is accepted, the paper provides a useful synthesis for HCI, automotive UI, and robotics researchers. Its strengths are the documented search logs (Appendix A), the full enumerated list of videos and Reddit threads (Tables 7 and 8), explicit screening criteria, and a candid limitations section. The framing of animals as relational actors rather than obstacles is a constructive contribution. The main risks are methodological: the ethnography is coded with the same themes derived from the literature, and the incident reports are unverified user-generated content, so the multi-method convergence asserted in the abstract is weaker than the paper's presentation suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.1, 3.2, and Abstract] The five themes are derived inductively from the scoping review, and the ethnography is then coded with 'the same five thematic categories from the scoping review' (Section 3.2, Data Analysis). The correspondence between the literature and the online ethnography is therefore partly by construction, yet the abstract and Section 5 present the multi-method design as surfacing and converging on five areas of concern. To support the convergence claim, the ethnographic items would need to be coded openly or by coders blind to the literature themes, with inter-coder agreement reported; alternatively, the ethnography should be explicitly presented as an illustrative extension rather than an independent confirmation. As written, the abstract's phrase 'Our analysis surfaces five key areas of concern' overstates the independence of the ethnography.
  2. [4.1.1, Ethnography paragraph] Claims such as 'Collisions were documented in two Tesla FSD videos in which stationary deer were not detected at night' and the Reddit account of a Tesla striking a dog while in FSD mode rest on unverified user-generated footage and posts. The paper does not triangulate these accounts with manufacturer data, system logs, or official incident reports, and Section 6 acknowledges that the corpus is user-curated and may skew toward unusual events. Because Physical Impact is one of the five headline themes, these incidents need to be either verified against independent sources or explicitly treated as anecdotal and illustrative; the current Results section gives them evidentiary weight that the source material cannot support.
  3. [3.3 and 4.2, Expert interviews] The expert interview analysis is described as inductive thematic analysis, but the third interview phase presented 'selected findings from the scoping review and online ethnography' to the experts, and Figure 3 maps expert insights onto the same five categories. This makes it difficult to know whether the experts independently generated the five themes or were responding to them. Please clarify whether the expert themes were elicited before or after exposure to the five categories, and consider reporting the interview guide or at least the order of questions so that readers can assess the degree to which the expert data are independent confirmation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1 vs Appendix A.2, Table 4] The text reports 681 Google Scholar results, but Table 4 sums to 426; the stated grand total of 1,231 corresponds to 805 + 426, so the 681 figure appears to be a typographical or arithmetic error.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments name 'Paul Schmidt', but the author list and expert profiles give 'Paul Schmitt'; the spelling should be made consistent.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Table 4 heading] The heading reads 'Google Scholar keyword search eesults' and should read 'results'.
  4. [Section 5.2, first paragraph] The sentence beginning 'While this paper does not argue for a shift to animal-centred design, but rather, the need...' is a run-on and should be rewritten for clarity.
  5. [Section 3.1, Screening process] The screening process is described as conducted by the first author and then reviewed by the first and second authors, but no inter-coder reliability or conflict-resolution procedure is reported; a brief statement on how disagreements were resolved would strengthen the trustworthiness of the thematic synthesis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One concrete circular step: the five 'surfaced' thematic categories were derived from the scoping review and then used as the coding frame for the online ethnography, so the claimed cross-method convergence is partly constructed; the thematic map itself retains independent grounding in the scoping review and external studies.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1 Data Analysis and Section 3.2 Data Analysis; presented as shared structure in Section 4.1]
    "The first author then conducted an inductive thematic analysis to identify recurring narratives across the literature, which were subsequently grouped under five thematic categories: Physical Impact, Behavioural Effects, Ethics and Regulations, Accessibility Concerns, and Urban Disturbance. ... While initial themes were developed inductively, we then applied the same five thematic categories from the scoping review to support consistency across both datasets and enable comparative analysis."

    The five categories are first induced from the scoping review (Section 3.1) and then imposed as the coding frame for the online ethnography (Section 3.2). Section 4.1 then presents both corpora under 'a shared thematic structure developed during the analysis.' The abstract's claim that 'Our analysis surfaces five key areas of concern' is therefore supported in the ethnographic strand only because the ethnography was sorted into those same five categories. The apparent multi-method convergence—literature and real-world data yielding the same themes—is partly a consequence of the coding scheme: the ethnography could not independently confirm or disconfirm the five-category structure, only fill in sub-themes and examples within it.

full rationale

The central thematic map is not derived from nothing: the scoping review is an inductive synthesis of 45 external papers, including empirical studies (e.g., Rasmussen et al. on hedgehogs and lawn mowers, Väätäjä et al. on dog-robot encounters, Rebolo-Ifrán et al. on drones), and the online ethnography contributes detailed real-world examples. The paper's self-citations ([65], [74], [75]) are contextual related-work references and are not load-bearing for the five-theme claim. The one substantive circular step is the coding procedure: the scoping-review themes become the ethnography's a priori categories, and the expert-interview layer is also mapped onto 'related thematic categories' after experts were asked to respond to the scoping-review and ethnography findings. Consequently, the claimed convergence of the three methods on the same five areas is partly by construction. This does not falsify the thematic map, but it weakens the abstract's phrasing that the analysis 'surfaces' the categories from all sources. Score 4 rather than 6 because the scoping review itself is an independent input and the paper openly discloses the imposed coding scheme; the result is not fully forced by self-citation or by definition. The unverified nature of YouTube/Reddit incident reports is an evidence-quality limitation, not a circularity, and is not counted here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This qualitative synthesis introduces no fitted parameters and no new technical entities. The central claim rests on documented methodological assumptions: user-generated videos and Reddit posts are reliable records of real encounters; the five themes induced from the literature are complete and valid for coding the ethnography; and eight experts, several connected to the authors' networks, give a representative view. Each is a domain assumption of qualitative research rather than an ad hoc mathematical postulate.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption User-generated YouTube videos and Reddit posts are treated as valid records of real animal-autonomous system encounters.
    Used in Section 4.1.1 to support claims about collisions and detection failures; the clips and posts are unverified and curated for novelty.
  • domain assumption The five thematic categories induced from the scoping review are complete and appropriate for coding the online ethnography.
    Section 3.2 applies the same five themes to YouTube and Reddit data, so phenomena outside this set are less likely to surface.
  • domain assumption The eight expert interviewees, including several drawn from the authors' professional and co-author networks, provide a representative range of domain expertise.
    Section 3.3 and Table 9; the sample is small, partly overlaps with cited authors (for example E2 authored the ACI manifesto cited as [44, 45]), and is acknowledged as selective in Section 6.
  • domain assumption Thematic saturation was reached with 45 papers, 50 ethnographic sources, and 8 interviews.
    The paper does not report saturation checks or a codebook; the final counts arise from the search and screening process described in Section 3.1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Animal Interaction with Autonomous Mobility Systems: Designing for Multi-Species Coexistence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ITC2P2WA

@misc{pith2026250716258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Animal Interaction with Autonomous Mobility Systems: Designing for Multi-Species Coexistence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ITC2P2WA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16258}
}
read the original abstract

Autonomous mobility systems increasingly operate in environments shared with animals, from urban pets to wildlife. However, their design has largely focused on human interaction, with limited understanding of how non-human species perceive, respond to, or are affected by these systems. Motivated by research in Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI) and more-than-human design, this study investigates animal interactions with autonomous mobility through a multi-method approach combining a scoping review (45 articles), online ethnography (39 YouTube videos and 11 Reddit discussions), and expert interviews (8 participants). Our analysis surfaces five key areas of concern: Physical Impact (e.g., collisions, failures to detect), Behavioural Effects (e.g., avoidance, stress), Accessibility Concerns (particularly for service animals), Ethics and Regulations, and Urban Disturbance. We conclude with design and policy directions aimed at supporting multispecies coexistence in the age of autonomous systems. This work underscores the importance of incorporating non-human perspectives to ensure safer, more inclusive futures for all species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16258 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the multi-method approach used in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sankey diagram mapping the relationships between autonomous system types and the five thematic categories. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Expert insights are mapped into related thematic categories, with new cross-cutting design directions highlighted for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ramchurn, and Moham- mad Divband Soorati

    Ayodeji Opeyemi Abioye, Lisa Bidgood, Sarvapali D. Ramchurn, and Moham- mad Divband Soorati. 2024. Mapping Safe Zones for Co-located Human-UAV Interaction. In Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems (Austin, TX, USA) (TAS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 10 pages. doi:10.1...

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    The bus is nothing without us

    Hunter Akridge, Bonnie Fan, Alice Xiaodi Tang, Chinar Mehta, Nikolas Martelaro, and Sarah E Fox. 2024. “The bus is nothing without us”: Making Visible the Labor of Bus Operators amid the Ongoing Push Towards Transit Automation. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Co...

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ahmed Al-S’di. 2022. User Centred Design Methods in Animal Centred Design: A Systematic Review. In 2022 International Conference on Theoretical and Applied Computer Science and Engineering (ICTASCE) . Institute of Electrical and Electron- ics Engineers, IEEE, Ankara, Turkey, 84–89. doi:10.1109/ICTACSE50438.2022. 10009842

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Autoura. 2025. Apollo. https://rollout.autoura.com/platforms/apollo. Accessed: 2025-04-08

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, and Iyad Rahwan. 2020. Crowdsourcing moral machines. Commun. ACM 63, 3 (2020), 48–55

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Oliver Bendel. 2018. Towards animal-friendly machines. Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics 9, 1 (2018), 204–213

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Steven David Benford, Clara Mancini, Alan Chamberlain, Eike Schneiders, Si- mon D Castle-Green, Joel E Fischer, Ayse Kucukyilmaz, Guido Salimbeni, Victor Zhi Heung Ngo, Pepita Barnard, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, and Ju Row Farr

    work page

  8. [8]

    Cynthia Bennett, Emily Ackerman, Bonnie Fan, Jeffrey Bigham, Patrick Carring- ton, and Sarah Fox. 2021. Accessibility and The Crowded Sidewalk: Micromobil- ity’s Impact on Public Space. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, USA) (DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 365–380. do...

    arXiv 2021

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    I was Confused by It; It was Confused by Me:

    Prajna Bhat and Yuhang Zhao. 2022. "I was Confused by It; It was Confused by Me:" Exploring the Experiences of People with Visual Impairments around Mobile Service Robots. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 481 (Nov. 2022), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3555582

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using the- matic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psy- chology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa arXiv:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Barry Brown, Mathias Broth, and Erik Vinkhuyzen. 2023. The Halting problem: Video analysis of self-driving cars in traffic. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Victoria Chang, Pramod Chundury, and Marshini Chetty. 2017. Spiders in the Sky: User Perceptions of Drones, Privacy, and Security. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machi...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Mark Colley, Marcel Walch, Jan Gugenheimer, Ali Askari, and Enrico Rukzio. 2020. Towards Inclusive External Communication of Autonomous Vehicles for Pedestri- ans with Vision Impairments. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu,...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Alan Cooper. 2004. The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity (2nd Edition) . Pearson Higher Education, Indianapolis, IN

    2004

  7. [15]

    Dani Deahl. 2017. Volvo’s Self-Driving Cars Are Having Trouble Recognizing Kangaroos. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/3/15916076/volvo- self-driving-cars-trouble-recognizing-kangaroos Accessed 6 July 2025

    2017

  8. [16]

    Judith Dörrenbächer, Madlen Kneile, Marc Hassenzahl, and Matthias Laschke

  9. [17]

    Bruce Englefield, Melissa Starling, Bethany Wilson, Caidyrn Roder, and Paul McGreevy. 2020. The Australian Roadkill Reporting Project—Applying Integrated Professional Research and Citizen Science to Monitor and Mitigate Roadkill in Australia. Animals 10, 7 (2020), 1–20. doi:10...

    2020 doi

  10. [18]

    In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Uppsala, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’24)

    Navigating the Paradox: Challenges of Designing Technology for Nonhu- mans. In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Uppsala, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/36...

  11. [19]

    Roberts, and Alper Bozkurt

    Marc Foster, Tarik Agcayazi, Talha Agcayazi, Tianfu Wu, Margaret Gruen, David L. Roberts, and Alper Bozkurt. 2020. Preliminary Evaluation of Dog- Drone Technological Interfaces: Challenges and Opportunities. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Comput...

    2020

  12. [20]

    Richard T. T. Forman, Daniel Sperling, John A. Bissonette, Anthony P. Clevenger, Carol D. Cutshall, Virginia H. Dale, Lenore Fahrig, Robert France, Charles R. Goldman, Kevin Heanue, et al. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions . Island Press, Washington, DC. 482 pages

    2003

  13. [21]

    Elisa Giaccardi and Johan Redström. 2020. Technology and More-Than-Human Design. Design Issues 36, 4 (September 2020), 33–44. doi:10.1162/desi_a_00612

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI The Next Wave? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 1, Article 2 (Nov. 2019), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3364998

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Howard Ziyu Han, Franklin Mingzhe Li, Alesandra Baca Vazquez, Daragh Byrne, Nikolas Martelaro, and Sarah E Fox. 2024. Co-design Accessible Public Robots: Insights from People with Mobility Disability, Robotic Practitioners and Their Collaborations. In Proceedings of the 2024 C...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Thilo Hagendorff, Leonie N Bossert, Yip Fai Tse, and Peter Singer. 2023. Speciesist bias in AI: how AI applications perpetuate discrimination and unfair outcomes against animals. AI and Ethics 3, 3 (2023), 717–734

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sabrina Hauser. 2018. Design-Oriented HCI Through Postphenomenology . Ph. D. Dissertation. Simon Fraser University

    2018

  18. [26]

    Marc Hassenzahl, Judith Dörrenbächer, Matthias Laschke, and Shadan Sadeghian

  19. [27]

    Julia Hermann, Moritz Plückthun, Aysegül Dogangün, and Marc Hesenius. 2022. User-Defined Gesture and Voice Control in Human-Drone Interaction for Police Operations. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Conference (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI ’22) . Association for Computing Mac...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Julia Hermann, Lukas Wedemeyer, Yakup Topac, Jonas Hoffmann, and Aysegül Dogangün. 2024. AI-Powered Animal Recognition and Tracking via Drone-Based Thermal Imaging: A User-Centric Mobile Application. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human-Agent Interactio...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Martin Heidegger. 1977. The question concerning technology. New York 214 (1977), 2013

    1977

  22. [30]

    Hoople and Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick

    Gordon D. Hoople and Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick. 2020. Drone Use Case Studies. Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology, & Society 5, 1 (2020), 61–78. doi:10. 1007/978-3-031-02116-9_6

    2020

  23. [33]

    International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO 13482:2014 Robots and robotic devices — Safety requirements for personal care robots. https://www.iso. org/standard/53820.html. Accessed: 2025-07-06

    2014

  24. [34]

    Wenqiang Jin, Mingyan Xiao, Huadi Zhu, Shuchisnigdha Deb, Chen Kan, and Ming Li. 2020. Acoussist: An Acoustic Assisting Tool for People with Visual Impairments to Cross Uncontrolled Streets. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 4, 4, Article 133 (Dec. 2020), 3...

    2020 doi

  25. [36]

    Kalik and Danil V

    Steven F. Kalik and Danil V. Prokhorov. 2007. Automotive Turing Test. InPro- ceedings of the 2007 Workshop on Performance Metrics for Intelligent Systems (Washington, D.C.) (PerMIS ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152–158. doi:10.1145/1660877.1660898

    2007

  26. [38]

    Swapna Joshi, Avram Block, and Paul Schmitt. 2023. Autonomous Vehicle and External Road User Interfaces: Mapping of Standards Gaps and Opportunities. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Inter- faces and Interactive Vehicular Applicati...

    2023

  27. [39]

    Jiabao Li. 2024. Creating with more-than-humans. In Proceedings of the Halfway to the Future Symposium (Santa Cruz, CA, USA) (HttF ’24). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 19, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3686169. 3686191

    2024 doi

  28. [40]

    Kunming Li, Mao Shan, Stephany Berrio Perez, Katie Luo, and Stewart Worrall

  29. [41]

    Cassie Kresnye and Patrick C

    K. Cassie Kresnye and Patrick C. Shih. 2021. Movement Patterns as Enrichment: Exploratory Canine-Drone Interaction Pilot Study. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (ACI ’20). Association for Comp...

    2021

  30. [42]

    Andreas Löcken, Mark Colley, Andrii Matviienko, Kai Holländer, Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Andrew L Kun, Susanne Boll, and Andreas Riener. 2021. We- CARe: Workshop on Inclusive Communication between Automated Vehicles and Vulnerable Road Users. In 22nd International Conferen...

    2021

  31. [43]

    Christoph Luetge. 2017. The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philosophy & Technology 30 (2017), 547–558

    2017

  32. [44]

    arXiv:2412.12222 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12222

    Endangered Alert: A Field-Validated Self-Training Scheme for Detecting and Protecting Threatened Wildlife on Roads and Roadsides. arXiv:2412.12222 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12222

    arXiv

  33. [45]

    Petermeijer, and Marieke Martens

    Shiva Nischal Lingam, Mervyn Franssen, Sebastiaan M. Petermeijer, and Marieke Martens. 2025. Challenges and Future Directions for Human-Drone Interaction Research: An Expert Perspective. International Journal of Hu- man–Computer Interaction 41, 12 (2025), 7905–7921. doi:10.108...

    2025

  34. [46]

    Carina Manger, Anna Preiwisch, Jakob Peintner, and Andreas Riener. 2024. Real- ity Check: How Do Real-World Users Experience Current Automated Driving Systems?. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Auto- motive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicula...

    2024

  35. [47]

    Arianna Mastali, Benjamin Mayo, Charles Ramey, Nate Elgart, Kirby Miller, and Melody Jackson. 2024. Play That Trunky Music: Development of an Auditory Enrichment Device for Elephants in Zoos. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI ’2...

    2024

  36. [48]

    Clara Mancini. 2013. Animal-computer interaction (ACI): changing perspective on HCI, participation and sustainability. In CHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI EA ’13). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22...

    2013

  37. [49]

    Clara Mancini. 2024. Responsible ACI: Expanding the Influence of Animal- Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (Raleigh, NC, USA) (ACI ’23). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3,...

    2024 doi

  38. [50]

    Marcus Owens and Jennifer Wolch. 2019. Rewilding Cities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. AutomotiveUI ’25, September 21–25, 2025, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Tran et al

    2019

  39. [51]

    Lisa Parks. 2019. Mediating Animal-Infrastructure Relations. In Being Material, M. P. Boucher, S. Helmreich, L. W. Kinney, S. Tibbits, R. Uchill, and E. Ziporyn (Eds.). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 144–153

    2019

  40. [52]

    KS Chetan Nag. 2020. Darwin Comes to Town: How the Urban Jungle Drives Evolution

    2020

  41. [53]

    Anton Nijholt. 2020. Virtual and Augmented Reality Animals in Smart and Play- ful Cities: (Invited Paper). In2020 Joint 9th International Conference on Informatics, Electronics & Vision (ICIEV) and 2020 4th International Conference on Imaging, Vision & Pattern Recognition (icI...

    2020

  42. [54]

    Natalia Rebolo-Ifrán, Maricel Grana Grilli, and Sergio A Lambertucci. 2019. Drones as a threat to wildlife: YouTube complements science in providing evi- dence about their effect. Environmental Conservation 46, 3 (2019), 205–210

    2019

  43. [55]

    Anton Poikolainen Rosén and Sara Heitlinger. 2025. Introducing More-Than- Human Design in Practice. Interactions 32, 2 (2025), 54–56

    2025

  44. [56]

    Hannah R. M. Pelikan, Stuart Reeves, and Marina N. Cantarutti. 2024. En- countering Autonomous Robots on Public Streets. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boulder, CO, USA) (HRI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    2024

  45. [57]

    Sophie Lund Rasmussen, Ane Elise Schrøder, Ronja Mathiesen, Jeppe Lund Nielsen, Cino Pertoldi, and David W Macdonald. 2021. Wildlife conservation at a garden level: the effect of robotic lawn mowers on European hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus). Animals 11, 5 (2021), 1191

    2021

  46. [58]

    Pericle Salvini, Diego Paez-Granados, and Aude Billard. 2021. On the Safety of Mobile Robots Serving in Public Spaces: Identifying gaps in EN ISO 13482:2014 and calling for a new standard. J. Hum.-Robot Interact. 10, 3, Article 19 (July 2021), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3442678

    2021 doi

  47. [59]

    Eike Schneiders, Steve Benford, Alan Chamberlain, Clara Mancini, Simon Castle- Green, Victor Ngo, Ju Row Farr, Matt Adams, Nick Tandavanitj, and Joel Fischer

  48. [60]

    Francisca Rosique, Pedro J Navarro, Carlos Fernández, and Antonio Padilla. 2019. A systematic review of perception system and simulators for autonomous vehicles research. Sensors 19, 3 (2019), 648

    2019

  49. [61]

    Stanislav Roudavski and Douglas Brock. 2025. From Dingoes to AI: Who Makes Decisions in More-than-Human Worlds? Journal for Human-Animal Studies 11 (Mar. 2025), 56–96. doi:10.23984/fjhas.145720

    2025 doi

  50. [62]

    Marc Steen. 2024. The problem with the trolley problem and the need for systems thinking. Commun. ACM 67, 6 (2024), 30–32

    2024

  51. [63]

    Nigel Thrift. 2021. Killer Cities. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

    2021

  52. [64]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24)

    Designing Multispecies Worlds for Robots, Cats, and Humans. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 593, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642115

    2024

  53. [65]

    Hyorim Shin, Junho Choi, and Changhoon Oh. 2024. Delivering the Future: Understanding User Perceptions of Delivery Robots. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 196 (April 2024), 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3653687

    2024 doi

  54. [66]

    Peter Singer and Yip Fai Tse. 2023. AI ethics: The case for including animals. AI and Ethics 3, 2 (2023), 539–551

    2023

  55. [67]

    Heli Väätäjä, Sari Tapio, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2023. Exploring Dogs’ Reactions when Encountering Delivery Robots in Urban Environment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference (Tampere, Finland) (Mindtrek ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2023

  56. [68]

    Marlice vanVuuren, Rudie vanVuuren, Larry M Silverberg, Joe Manning, Krishna Pacifici, Werner Dorgeloh, and Jennifer Campbell. 2023. Ungulate responses and habituation to unmanned aerial vehicles in Africa’s savanna. PLoS One 18, 7 (2023), e0288975

    2023

  57. [69]

    Suzanne Tolmeijer, Markus Kneer, Cristina Sarasua, Markus Christen, and Abra- ham Bernstein. 2021. Implementations in Machine Ethics: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 6, Article 132 (Dec. 2021), 38 pages. doi:10.1145/3419633

    2021 doi

  58. [70]

    Martin Tomitsch and Steve Baty. 2023. Designing Tomorrow: Strategic Design Tactics to Change Your Practice, Organisation & Planetary Impact . BIS Publishers, Amsterdam

    2023

  59. [71]

    Heli Väätäjä. 2014. Animal Welfare as a Design Goal in Technology Mediated Human-Animal Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2014 Workshops on Advances in Computer Entertainment Conference (Funchal, Portugal) (ACE ’14 Workshops). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    2014

  60. [72]

    David Weinberg, Healy Dwyer, Sarah E Fox, and Nikolas Martelaro. 2023. Sharing the sidewalk: Observing delivery robot interactions with pedestrians during a pilot in Pittsburgh, PA. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 7, 5 (2023), 53

    2023

  61. [73]

    Negin Yaghoubisharif, Christopher Getschmann, and Florian Echtler. 2022. HeadsUp: Mobile Collision Warnings through Ultrasound Doppler Sensing. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multi- media (Lisbon, Portugal) (MUM ’22). Association f...

    2022

  62. [74]

    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2015. Beyond interaction: a short introduction to mediation theory. Interactions 22, 3 (April 2015), 26–31. doi:10.1145/2751314

    2015 doi

  63. [75]

    Ron Wakkary. 2021. Things We Could Design: For More Than Human-Centered Worlds. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    2021

  64. [76]

    Sarah Webber, Jessica Oliver, Wally Smith, Julia Hoy, Kellie Vella, Margot Brere- ton, Helena Bender, Alasdair Davies, and Kate Judith. 2022. Digital Technologies in Nature. InProceedings of the Eight International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (Bloomington, IN, US...

    2022

  65. [77]

    animal" OR

    Anna Zamansky, Stephane Bleuer-Elsner, Sylvia Masson, Shir Amir, Ofer Magen, and Dirk van der Linden. 2018. Effects of anxiety on canine movement in dog- robot interactions. Anim. Behav. Cogn 5 (2018), 380–387. Animal Interaction with Autonomous Mobility Systems: Designing for...

    2018

  66. [79]

    Xinyan Yu, Marius Hoggenmüller, Tram Thi Minh Tran, Yiyuan Wang, and Martin Tomitsch. 2024. Understanding the interaction between delivery robots and other road and sidewalk users: A study of user-generated online videos.ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction 13, 4 (2024), 1–32

    2024

  67. [80]

    Xinyan Yu, Tram Thi Minh Tran, Yiyuan Wang, Kristina Mah, Yidan Cao, Stine S Johansen, Wafa Johal, Maria Luce Lupetti, Megan Rose, Markus Rittenbruch, Rodney G Zsolczay, and Marius Hoggenmüller. 2024. Out of Place Robot in the Wild: Envisioning Urban Robot Contextual Adaptabil...

    2024

  68. [81]

    Anna Zamansky. 2016. Dog-drone interactions: towards an ACI perspective. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Inter- action (Milton Keynes, United Kingdom) (ACI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 4 pages...

    2016

  69. [2022]

    In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Confer- ence (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI ’22)

    European Union’s Green Smart Directive or How Resource-Conscious Smart Systems Saved the World. In Nordic Human-Computer Interaction Confer- ence (Aarhus, Denmark) (NordiCHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 98, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3546155.3547277

  70. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24)

    Charting Ethical Tensions in Multispecies Technology Research through Beneficiary-Epistemology Space. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Articl...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.