Haptic Signals as a Communication Tool Between Handlers and Dogs: Review of a New Field
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is indeed an interesting topic particularly given the current methods, relying on aversive methods, within the working dog field and I see haptic signals as an inventive way forward. I had minor issues with the manuscript relating mostly to minor grammatical errors that should have been rectified or identified prior to submission as well as concern and would like some clarification to your search methodology.
Line 48: Should likely be “Dog’s” and then later in the same sentence, “human’s”
Line 78: “human hears” should likely be “human ears”
Line 85/87: difference in use of single vs plural tense so want to ensure consistency. Also, while this might be a cultural difference, I am more familiar with the term as “teams” describing a canine and handler dyad rather than brigade.
Line 100: should be “structural and functional properties…are well known”
Line 136:
I am not very well-versed in the technology/haptic specific field, but I am aware of what is currently used in general dog training, particularly in the public sector. Given that is there a reason you excluded “collar” as once of your keyword terms?
For example, you note in the summary and abstract about impaired animals (in the public) and while this does not necessarily relate to what appears to be your more specific focus with working dogs, the apparent ignoring of the literature in how vibration signals currently work with companion animals seems odd. The use of aversive e-collars is obviously much more widely reviewed but also given your secondary aim to broaden the examination of haptic signaling on how it might impact a bond, any literature (if it exists) in how vibration collars (without the electrical stimulation feature) particularly those used by the general public to train blind or deaf animals should have been included.
Line 231: believe correct grammar/wording should be “another feature of haptic devices..”
Line 242, 243, 270: should be “dog’s”
Line 279: “ration” should be “ratio”
Line 283: As written with abbreviations and use of equal sign, this is not a grammatical complete sentence
Section 3: Verb tense to describe the findings of the papers varies between present and past tense. Since the findings for each studied occurred in the past, tense should be in past tense, e.g.: Line 227: acceleration levels and signal duration “vary” significantly but this information pertains to completed and past reseach; Line 297: Should be “concluded” to maintain past tense grammar throughout the text
Line 307: For ease of reading and consistency to Table 2, please provide citation number for Table 3
Line 330: Should be “studies” since referring to all
Line 387: Do not believe “If” should in the sentence. Sentence likely meant to begin as “While most of the studies”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall, there were a number of small grammatical errors in the text that might be to issues in writing in your non-dominant language but should have been edited and caught prior to submission to a journal for review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments on the manuscript “Haptic signals as a communication tool between handlers and dogs: Review of a new field”, submitted to Animals
The manuscript is a review of haptic communication between humans and dogs. The text provides an overview of studies that have analyzed dogs' reactions to nonverbal stimuli (vibrational, auditory, etc.), how the well-being of dogs is affected, aspects not investigated in these studies, and future directions for scientific research.
The review reveals that studies still leave many questions about haptic communication, but it appears to be a promising field for acquiring relevant knowledge.
The topic of the review is of significant interest to scientific research because it has conceptual applications to cognition, human-dog bonding, and animal welfare. There are also applied aspects, as dogs are assigned roles in which verbal communication (vocalization) is hindered (e.g., rescue dogs, military dogs, etc.).
The text is well-developed, with structured parts that simplify understanding of the topic, while remaining concise and precise.
The title accurately reflects the subject matter of the text.
The abstract is concise and comprehensive.
In the introduction, the reader will understand the justification for conducting the review, given the emerging and still little-explored topic of haptic communication between humans and dogs.
The method is rigorous and appropriate for a systematic literature review.
The results are robust, followed by a discussion that draws on recent, well-founded studies.
The conclusion is consistent with the objectives and results found.
The references are necessary and support the arguments and comparisons expressed in the body of the text.
Author Response
Comment 1:
The manuscript is a review of haptic communication between humans and dogs. The text provides an overview of studies that have analyzed dogs' reactions to nonverbal stimuli (vibrational, auditory, etc.), how the well-being of dogs is affected, aspects not investigated in these studies, and future directions for scientific research.
The review reveals that studies still leave many questions about haptic communication, but it appears to be a promising field for acquiring relevant knowledge.
The topic of the review is of significant interest to scientific research because it has conceptual applications to cognition, human-dog bonding, and animal welfare. There are also applied aspects, as dogs are assigned roles in which verbal communication (vocalization) is hindered (e.g., rescue dogs, military dogs, etc.).
The text is well-developed, with structured parts that simplify understanding of the topic, while remaining concise and precise.
The title accurately reflects the subject matter of the text.
The abstract is concise and comprehensive.
In the introduction, the reader will understand the justification for conducting the review, given the emerging and still little-explored topic of haptic communication between humans and dogs.
The method is rigorous and appropriate for a systematic literature review.
The results are robust, followed by a discussion that draws on recent, well-founded studies.
The conclusion is consistent with the objectives and results found.
The references are necessary and support the arguments and comparisons expressed in the body of the text.
Response 1:
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the positive and encouraging evaluation.
We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the relevance and novelty of haptic communication between humans and dogs, as well as its conceptual and applied implications for cognition, human–dog relationships, and animal welfare.
We are particularly grateful for the acknowledgment of the clarity, structure, and methodological rigor of the review, as well as for the positive assessment of the abstract, results, discussion, and conclusions. The reviewer’s comments confirm the value of synthesizing this emerging field and highlight the importance of continued research in this area.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript offers a useful synthesis of wearable vibrotactile (“haptic”) systems for human–dog communication, and one of its main strengths is its measured tone: the review captures both the promise of these interfaces and the limits of the current evidence without overstating what the literature can support.
The overall organization is clear and readable, but the paper would benefit from a small amount of tightening and polishing that would substantially increase its value as a reference piece. In particular, the methods section would be stronger with a few additional details that allow readers to fully trust and reproduce the search process (e.g., the date the searches were last run, any date limits, and how conference papers/duplicates were treated), which can be provided briefly in-text or as a supplement.
Table 1 is clearly intended to be the backbone of the review; improving its readability and comparability across studies—by standardizing a small set of consistently reported fields (sample size, population type, device placement, training protocol, outcome measure, and key result) and clearly marking “not reported” items—would make the synthesis more immediately usable. Relatedly, because studies operationalize outcomes such as “accuracy,” “recognition,” and “response” differently, a short clarification of what counts as “communication success” in your synthesis, and where measures are not directly comparable, would further sharpen the contribution.
The welfare discussion is one of the manuscript’s most important sections; it could be strengthened with a few concrete suggestions about what future studies should report (for example, which behavioral indicators were monitored, how discomfort was assessed, and what criteria would warrant pausing or stopping sessions), keeping the focus on practical standards rather than abstract caution. Where the manuscript makes normative claims about device ergonomics or weight thresholds, the argument will read more persuasive if these points are explicitly grounded in the relevant source literature and framed as contextual guidance whose applicability may vary by breed, task, harness type, and duration of wear.
Finally, the discussion of cross-modal cues (especially potential auditory by-products of vibrotactile devices) is important and deserves slightly more explicit treatment, including a brief note on how future studies might better separate vibration effects from sound/handling cues.
The English is generally clear and the paper is already readable, but a light copy-edit to address typos and streamline a few sentences would improve clarity and authority throughout. A light edit for grammar and phrasing would make the arguments sharper and reduce occasional ambiguity.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsL83 to be in vicinity of each other…
L93 it is not common to place the reference in the middle of the sentence
L270 subject (0.69 g), and then…
L372-385 I don’t really get it why audible artifacts would interfere much with the functioning of the device? The dogs probably will respond to the hepatic signals anyway if the sound byproducts are very similar across different haptic signals (the sound will be background). Otherwise, if the sound byproducts are different across haptic signals, then they will serve as additional discrimination cues for the dogs.
L387 delete “if”
In the discussion (future directions), the implementation of live-vision-assisted remote communication between handlers and dogs should be considered, particularly in environments that are challenging or hazardous for human access. This capability would enable handlers to guide dogs effectively from a distance, which might significantly enhancing operational safety and efficiency.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
