skip to main content
10.1145/3493842.3493898acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

Objective Assessment of Movement for Canine Neurology

Published:18 May 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Neurological disorders are among the most severe and difficult-to-treat pathological conditions in veterinary medicine, AI and computational approaches have great potential for both clinical care and scientific research by detecting subtle changes (e.g. behavior or gait patters) that may indicate a gradual progression of a neurological disorder, hopefully early detection will enable effective medical countermeasures that could change the course of the disease. In this research we focus on canine ataxia, so far, the localization of the lesion in the neurological examination can only be concluded by a subjective evaluation of the movement coordination in relation to other accompanying symptoms of the patient by veterinary evaluation. We wish to explore computational approaches for automatic analysis of animal movement in the context of objective evaluation of coordination impairments.

References

  1. [n.d.]. VetCompass Knowledge Hub. https://www.rvc.ac.uk/vetcompassGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Peter Ahrendt, Torben Gregersen, and Henrik Karstoft. 2011. Development of a real-time computer vision system for tracking loose-housed pigs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 76, 2 (2011), 169–174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Joelle Alcaidinho, Giancarlo Valentin, Stephanie Tai, Brian Nguyen, Krista Sanders, Melody Jackson, Eric Gilbert, and Thad Starner. 2015. Leveraging mobile technology to increase the permanent adoption of shelter dogs. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 463–469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Joelle Alcaidinho, Giancarlo Valentin, Nate Yoder, Stephanie Tai, Paul Mundell, and Melody Jackson. 2014. Assessment of working dog suitability from quantimetric data. In NordiCHI’14, Oct 26–Oct 30, 2014, Helsinki, Finland. Georgia Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Tetsuo Ashizawa and Guangbin Xia. 2016. Ataxia. Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology 22, 4 Movement Disorders(2016), 1208.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shanis Barnard, Simone Calderara, Simone Pistocchi, Rita Cucchiara, Michele Podaliri-Vulpiani, Stefano Messori, and Nicola Ferri. 2016. Quick, accurate, smart: 3D computer vision technology helps assessing confined animals’ behaviour. PloS one 11, 7 (2016), e0158748.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Rita Brugarolas, Robert T Loftin, Pu Yang, David L Roberts, Barbara Sherman, and Alper Bozkurt. 2013. Behavior recognition based on machine learning algorithms for a wireless canine machine interface. In Body Sensor Networks (BSN), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Tilo Burghardt and J Ćalić. 2006. Analysing animal behaviour in wildlife videos using face detection and tracking. IEE Proceedings-Vision, Image and Signal Processing 153, 3(2006), 305–312.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Joan R Coates and Fred A Wininger. 2010. Canine degenerative myelopathy. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice 40, 5 (2010), 929–950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. SE Roian Egnor and Kristin Branson. 2016. Computational analysis of behavior. Annual review of neuroscience 39 (2016), 217–236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Linda Gerencsér, Gábor Vásárhelyi, Máté Nagy, Tamas Vicsek, and Adam Miklósi. 2013. Identification of behaviour in freely moving dogs (Canis familiaris) using inertial sensors. PloS one 8, 10 (2013), e77814.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Carol Hall and Amanda Roshier. 2016. Getting the measure of behavior… is seeing believing?interactions 23, 4 (2016), 42–46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeffrey M Hausdorff. 2005. Gait variability: methods, modeling and meaning. Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 2, 1(2005), 1–9.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. A. Jaggy and B. Spiess. 2010. Neurological Examination of Small Animals. Hannover.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sabrina Karl, Magdalena Boch, Anna Zamansky, Dirk van der Linden, Isabella C Wagner, Christoph J Völter, Claus Lamm, and Ludwig Huber. 2020. Exploring the dog–human relationship by combining fMRI, eye-tracking and behavioural measures. Scientific reports 10, 1 (2020), 1–15.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Soichiro Koyama, Shigeo Tanabe, Norihide Itoh, Eiichi Saitoh, Kazuya Takeda, Satoshi Hirano, Kei Ohtsuka, Masahiko Mukaino, Ryuzo Yanohara, Hiroaki Sakurai, 2018. Intra-and inter-rater reliability and validity of the tandem gait test for the assessment of dynamic gait balance. European Journal of Physiotherapy 20, 3 (2018), 135–140.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Cassim Ladha, Nils Hammerla, Emma Hughes, Patrick Olivier, and Thomas Ploetz. 2013. Dog’s life: wearable activity recognition for dogs. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing. ACM, 415–418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Laura W Lee and D Casey Kerrigan. 1999. Identification of Kinetic Differences Between Fallers and Nonfallers in the Elderly1. American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation 78, 3(1999), 242–246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alexander Mathis, Pranav Mamidanna, Kevin M Cury, Taiga Abe, Venkatesh N Murthy, Mackenzie Weygandt Mathis, and Matthias Bethge. 2018. DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nature neuroscience 21, 9 (2018), 1281.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Sean Mealin, Ignacio X Domínguez, and David L Roberts. 2016. Semi-supervised classification of static canine postures using the Microsoft Kinect. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. ACM, 16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Sean Mealin, Marc Foster, Zach Cleghern, Alper Bozkurt, and David L Roberts. 2020. Using Inertial Measurement Unit Data for Objective Evaluations of Potential Guide Dogs. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction. 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ádám Miklósi. 2014. Dog behaviour, evolution, and cognition. oUp Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. R Monteiro, V Adams, D Keys, and SR Platt. 2012. Canine idiopathic epilepsy: prevalence, risk factors and outcome associated with cluster seizures and status epilepticus. Journal of Small Animal Practice 53, 9 (2012), 526–530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Lucas PJJ Noldus, Andrew J Spink, and Ruud AJ Tegelenbosch. 2002. Computerised video tracking, movement analysis and behaviour recognition in insects. Computers and Electronics in agriculture 35, 2 (2002), 201–227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Karen L Overall. 2014. The ethogram project. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research 9, 1(2014), 1–5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Diane Podsiadlo and Sandra Richardson. 1991. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. Journal of the American geriatrics Society 39, 2 (1991), 142–148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Patricia Pons, Javier Jaen, and Alejandro Catala. 2017. Assessing machine learning classifiers for the detection of animals’ behavior using depth-based tracking. Expert Systems with Applications 86 (2017), 235–246.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Felipe Augusto Folha Santos, Luciane Bizari C de Carvalho, Lucila Fernandes do Prado, Gilmar Fernandes do Prado, Orlando G Barsottini, and José Luiz Pedroso. 2018. Sleep apnea in Machado-Joseph disease: a clinical and polysomnographic evaluation. Sleep medicine 48(2018), 23–26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. D Sergeant, R Boyle, and M Forbes. 1998. Computer visual tracking of poultry. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 21, 1 (1998), 1–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Akshata Sonni, Lauri BF Kurdziel, Bengi Baran, and Rebecca MC Spencer. 2014. The effects of sleep dysfunction on cognition, affect, and quality of life in individuals with cerebellar ataxia. Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 10, 5 (2014), 535–543.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. AJ Spink, RAJ Tegelenbosch, MOS Buma, and LPJJ Noldus. 2001. The EthoVision video tracking system—a tool for behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice. Physiology & behavior 73, 5 (2001), 731–744.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Keren Tchelet, Alit Stark-Inbar, and Ziv Yekutieli. 2019. Pilot study of the EncephaLog smartphone application for gait analysis. Sensors 19, 23 (2019), 5179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. RD Tillett, CM Onyango, and JA Marchant. 1997. Using model-based image processing to track animal movements. Computers and electronics in agriculture 17, 2 (1997), 249–261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. HA Van de Weerd, RJA Bulthuis, AF Bergman, F Schlingmann, J Tolboom, PLP Van Loo, R Remie, V Baumans, and LFM Van Zutphen. 2001. Validation of a new system for the automatic registration of behaviour in mice and rats. Behavioural processes 53, 1 (2001), 11–20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Dirk van der Linden, Anna Zamansky, Irit Hadar, Barnaby Craggs, and Awais Rashid. 2019. Buddy’s Wearable Is Not Your Buddy: Privacy Implications of Pet Wearables. IEEE Security & Privacy 17, 3 (2019), 28–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. 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. Animal Behavior and Cognition 5(4) (2018), 380–387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Anna Zamansky, Aleksandr M Sinitca, Dmitry I Kaplun, Michael Plazner, Ivana G Schork, Robert J Young, and Cristiano S de Azevedo. 2019. Analysis of dogs’ sleep patterns using convolutional neural networks. In International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Springer, 472–483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Anna Zamansky and Dirk van der Linden. 2018. Activity trackers for raising guide dogs: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 37, 4 (2018), 62–69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Anna Zamansky, Dirk van der Linden, Irit Hadar, and Stephane Bleuer-Elsner. 2019. Log my dog: perceived impact of dog activity tracking. Computer 52, 9 (2019), 35–43.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    ACI '21: Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction
    November 2021
    144 pages
    ISBN:9781450385138
    DOI:10.1145/3493842

    Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 18 May 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format