Human Enjoyment in Tactile Interaction with Horses and Dogs: A Comparative Study

Animal-assisted interventions (AAI) are increasingly being integrated into human healthcare services due to their demonstrated positive impacts on mental and physical health. This research involved two separate experiments with 10 therapy horses and 18 therapy dogs. In both studies, the effect of touch treatments was assessed on human heart rate (HR), heart rate variability (HRV) and positive emotional responses evaluated by the Positive Affect Scale (PAS) survey representing three categories: activated, relaxed and safe. The experiment involving horses also explored the effect of human experience with horses on human HR, HRV and PAS categories. Forty-nine human participants interacted with horses (4/participant), and 44 participants interacted with dogs (1-4/participant) individually. The interactions occurred under two treatments: forced touch (animals were restricted and required to interact) and consensual touch (animals were free and could voluntarily choose to interact). Each participant's HR and HRV were recorded using a heart rate monitor. Each horse was equipped with a heart rate monitor. After each treatment, participants completed the PAS survey on a scale of 1-5, where 1 indicated “did not feel this way at all” and 5 indicated “felt this way very much”. A GLIMMIX model with repeated measures was used for statistical analysis, and Pearson correlations analyzed the relationship between human and horse HR. During forced touch interactions with horses, human HR was higher (p = .0001) and HRV (p = .0065) was lower compared to consensual touch interactions. Human experience with horses did not affect HR (p = .3043) or HRV (p = .1366) during human-horse touch interactions, but it did influence responses on the PAS survey, with more experienced participants reporting a lower "activated" (p = .0058) and higher "relaxed" (p = .0275) and "safe" (p = .0343) feelings compared to participants with less horse experience. No correlation was determined between human and horse HR (r = 0.09). In the dog study, human HR (p = .2513) and HRV (p = .1691) did not differ between the two touch treatments during human-dog interactions. Touch treatment did not influence PAS scores in either human-horse (all p > .1373) or human-dog (all p > .0953) touch treatments. Participants perceived interactions with dogs more positively than with horses, as indicated by the descriptive comparison of PAS scores across the two studies. The findings suggest that providing horses with the choice to interact with humans may affect participants' cardiac arousal, while no such impact was observed in human cardiac responses during interactions with dogs. These findings indicate that the influence of choice on human response may vary depending on the animal species involved. Understanding the species-specific variations is crucial for maximizing the success and effectiveness of AAI programs

动物辅助干预（Animal-assisted interventions, AAI）因其已被证实对身心健康存在积极影响，正日益被整合入人类医疗服务体系。本研究开展两项独立实验，分别纳入10匹治疗马与18只治疗犬。两项实验均评估触摸干预对人类心率（heart rate, HR）、心率变异性（heart rate variability, HRV）的影响，并通过积极情感量表（Positive Affect Scale, PAS）问卷评估人类的积极情绪反应，该量表涵盖激活、放松与安全三类情绪维度。针对马的实验还进一步探究了人类与马的互动经验对受试者HR、HRV及PAS维度评分的影响。
本研究共有49名人类受试者与马进行单独互动（每人完成4次互动），44名受试者与犬进行单独互动（每人完成1至4次互动）。互动分为两种干预模式：强制触摸（动物受到约束，必须参与互动）与自愿触摸（动物拥有行动自由，可自主选择是否参与互动）。每名受试者的HR与HRV均通过心率监测仪记录，每匹治疗马也配备了心率监测仪。每次干预结束后，受试者完成PAS问卷，评分范围为1至5分，其中1代表"完全未产生该情绪"，5代表"强烈感受到该情绪"。
本研究采用带重复测量的GLIMMIX模型开展统计分析，并通过皮尔逊相关分析探究人类与马的HR之间的关联。在强制触摸模式下与马互动时，受试者的HR显著高于自愿触摸模式（p = 0.0001），HRV则显著更低（p = 0.0065）。人类与马的互动经验未对人与马互动时的HR（p = 0.3043）与HRV（p = 0.1366）产生显著影响，但会对PAS问卷评分产生显著作用：相较于互动经验较少的受试者，经验更丰富的受试者报告的"激活"情绪评分更低（p = 0.0058），"放松"与"安全"情绪评分更高（分别对应p = 0.0275与p = 0.0343）。人类与马的HR未发现显著相关（r = 0.09）。
在犬相关实验中，人与犬互动时，两种触摸模式下的受试者HR（p = 0.2513）与HRV（p = 0.1691）均无显著差异。无论是人与马还是人与犬的互动，触摸干预模式均未对PAS评分产生显著影响（人与马组所有p > 0.1373，人与犬组所有p > 0.0953）。通过两项研究的PAS评分描述性对比可知，受试者对与犬的互动的积极评价更高。
本研究结果表明，赋予马自主选择是否与人类互动的权利，可能会影响受试者的心脏唤醒水平，而在人与犬的互动中未观察到此类人类心脏反应变化。上述发现提示，互动选择权对人类反应的影响可能因所涉及的动物物种而异。明确物种特异性差异，对于最大化动物辅助干预项目的成功率与有效性至关重要。