发表机构
University of California San Diego（加利福尼亚大学圣迭戈分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过视频记录专业缉毒犬队的搜索过程，发现目标遗漏多发生在狗接近目标但未示警的遭遇环节，且成功取决于狗的反应、训导员决策及双方协调。
AI 中文摘要
气味检测工作是一种跨物种合作形式。狗能采样到训导员无法感知的气味，而训导员则决定团队搜索的地点以及狗的哪些反应算作发现。然而，检测性能主要通过结果和狗的特征来衡量。为了更好地观察搜索过程本身，我们在两个有裁判的检测活动中收集了数据（37个专业缉毒犬队的109次搜索）。所有搜索均被视频记录，并包括室外区域、车辆和建筑物搜索，每个搜索设有两个目标和食物及货币干扰物。我们将狗和训导员的计算机视觉追踪与连续行为编码同步进行。我们观察到各团队之间存在差异，总体上有42%的目标被发现。发现很少被错过，因为狗从未接近目标或训导员未呼叫示警。相反，大多数错过发生在遭遇本身，因为狗几乎接近每个目标（在1米以内），但在这些经过中仅约六分之一进行了示警。在狗反应之前，训导员在目标附近的行为与在干扰物附近的行为并无不同。发现目标在团队内部具有中等一致性，而误报则取决于个体搜索和特定物品。观察搜索过程表明，成功是狗的反应、训导员的决策以及他们之间协调的结果。
英文摘要
Scent detection work is a form of interspecies cooperation. Dogs sample odors that handlers cannot perceive, and handlers decide where the team searches and which of the dogs' responses counts as a find. However, detection performance is predominantly measured by outcomes and dog characteristics. To better observe the search process itself, we collected data at two judged detection events (109 searches of 37 professional narcotics teams). All searches were video-recorded and included an outdoor area, a vehicle, and a building search, each with two targets and food and currency distractors. We synchronized computer-vision tracking of dogs and handlers with continuous behavioral coding. We observed variation across teams and in total 42\% of targets were found. Finds were rarely missed because dogs never came close to a target or because handlers did not call an indication. Rather, most were missed at the encounter itself, as dogs came within 1~m of nearly every target but indicated on only about one in six of these passes. Handlers did not behave differently near targets than near distractors before their dogs responded. Finding targets was moderately consistent within teams, whereas false calls depended on the individual search and on specific items. Observing the search process suggests that success is a result of the dog's response, the handler's decision, and their coordination.
Comments51 pages, 7 figures, 2 tables
