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）因其已被证实对人类身心健康具有积极影响，正日益被整合入人类医疗保健服务体系。本研究开展了两项独立实验，分别使用10匹治疗马与18只治疗犬。两项实验均针对触摸疗法的效果展开评估，评估指标包括人类受试者的心率（heart rate, HR）、心率变异性（heart rate variability, HRV），以及由积极情感量表（Positive Affect Scale, PAS）问卷调查所评估的积极情绪反应，该量表涵盖激活态、放松态与安全态三个维度。涉马实验还进一步探究了人类的马匹接触经验对其HR、HRV及PAS各维度得分的影响。本次实验共有49名人类受试者与马匹进行互动（每人参与4次互动），另有44名受试者与犬只进行一对一互动（每人参与1-4次互动）。互动过程分为两种处理模式：强制触摸（动物受到约束，需参与互动）与自愿触摸（动物拥有行动自由，可自主选择是否参与互动）。每位受试者的HR与HRV均通过心率监测仪进行记录，每匹治疗马也配备了心率监测仪。每次互动治疗结束后，受试者需完成PAS量表作答，该量表采用1-5级计分，其中1代表“完全未产生该感受”，5代表“该感受极为强烈”。统计分析采用带有重复测量的GLIMMIX模型，同时通过皮尔逊相关分析探究人类与马匹HR之间的关联。在强制触摸模式下与马匹互动时，人类受试者的HR显著更高（p = 0.0001），而HRV则显著更低（p = 0.0065），相较于自愿触摸模式。人类的马匹接触经验并未对涉马触摸互动中的HR（p = 0.3043）或HRV（p = 0.1366）产生显著影响，但会显著影响PAS量表的作答结果：相较于马匹接触经验较少的受试者，经验更丰富的受试者报告的“激活态”感受更低（p = 0.0058），而“放松态”（p = 0.0275）与“安全态”（p = 0.0343）感受则更高。人类与马匹的HR之间未发现显著相关性（r = 0.09）。在涉犬实验中，人类受试者在两种触摸模式下的HR（p = 0.2513）与HRV（p = 0.1691）均无显著差异。无论是涉马还是涉犬互动，触摸模式均未对PAS得分产生显著影响（涉马组所有p > 0.1373，涉犬组所有p > 0.0953）。通过对两项研究的PAS得分进行描述性比较可知，受试者对与犬只互动的积极评价高于与马匹的互动。研究结果表明，赋予马匹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，而在人类与犬只的互动中并未观察到此类影响。上述发现提示，选择权对人类反应的影响可能因所涉及的动物物种而异。理解物种特异性差异，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。