Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]

Emily Stark, Jeremy Pitt, Alfian Nur Wicaksono, Kristina Milanovic, Victoria Lush, Stephen Hoover

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

Of the five traditional exteroceptive senses-sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), touch (somatosensation), and smell (olfaction)-olfaction has one of lowest data rates, but is (arguably) the least understood and least welldeveloped in terms of automation. Robotic vision would seem to be much further advanced than robotic olfaction. Additionally, this comparison is just in relation to human olfactory performance. A dog's sense of smell overpowers human capability by a factor of 10 000 to 100 000 (dogs having 50 times more olfactory sensors than humans). For this reason, detection (or sniffer) dogs are extensively used in search and rescue, or to search for illicit substances, while healthcare applications include Diabetes Assist Dogs which are trained to monitor smells in the air for a specific scent on the human breath that is related to rapidly dropping or low blood sugar levels, and to alert the person with diabetes. Critically, the dog is detecting a change in the volatile organic compound (VOC) information. This information is carried by the chemicals that are naturally emitted by all humans through exhalation, cutaneous respiration (skin gas exchange), or perspiration.

Original languageEnglish
Article number8558770
Pages (from-to)16-19
Number of pages4
JournalIEEE Technology and Society Magazine
Volume37
Issue number4
Early online date30 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

Audition
Medical problems
chronic illness
Robotics
moral philosophy
Volatile organic compounds
automation
Sugars
Skin
Blood
Automation
air
human being
Sensors
Air
Gases
performance

Cite this

Stark, E., Pitt, J., Nur Wicaksono, A., Milanovic, K., Lush, V., & Hoover, S. (2018). Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 37(4), 16-19. [8558770]. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103
Stark, Emily ; Pitt, Jeremy ; Nur Wicaksono, Alfian ; Milanovic, Kristina ; Lush, Victoria ; Hoover, Stephen. / Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]. In: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2018 ; Vol. 37, No. 4. pp. 16-19.
@article{9cf64034402a4854bc0a106cacb334fe,
title = "Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]",
abstract = "Of the five traditional exteroceptive senses-sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), touch (somatosensation), and smell (olfaction)-olfaction has one of lowest data rates, but is (arguably) the least understood and least welldeveloped in terms of automation. Robotic vision would seem to be much further advanced than robotic olfaction. Additionally, this comparison is just in relation to human olfactory performance. A dog's sense of smell overpowers human capability by a factor of 10 000 to 100 000 (dogs having 50 times more olfactory sensors than humans). For this reason, detection (or sniffer) dogs are extensively used in search and rescue, or to search for illicit substances, while healthcare applications include Diabetes Assist Dogs which are trained to monitor smells in the air for a specific scent on the human breath that is related to rapidly dropping or low blood sugar levels, and to alert the person with diabetes. Critically, the dog is detecting a change in the volatile organic compound (VOC) information. This information is carried by the chemicals that are naturally emitted by all humans through exhalation, cutaneous respiration (skin gas exchange), or perspiration.",
author = "Emily Stark and Jeremy Pitt and {Nur Wicaksono}, Alfian and Kristina Milanovic and Victoria Lush and Stephen Hoover",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "16--19",
number = "4",

}

Stark, E, Pitt, J, Nur Wicaksono, A, Milanovic, K, Lush, V & Hoover, S 2018, 'Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]', IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, vol. 37, no. 4, 8558770, pp. 16-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103

Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]. / Stark, Emily; Pitt, Jeremy; Nur Wicaksono, Alfian; Milanovic, Kristina; Lush, Victoria; Hoover, Stephen.

In: IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 4, 8558770, 04.12.2018, p. 16-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

TY - JOUR

T1 - Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]

AU - Stark, Emily

AU - Pitt, Jeremy

AU - Nur Wicaksono, Alfian

AU - Milanovic, Kristina

AU - Lush, Victoria

AU - Hoover, Stephen

PY - 2018/12/4

Y1 - 2018/12/4

N2 - Of the five traditional exteroceptive senses-sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), touch (somatosensation), and smell (olfaction)-olfaction has one of lowest data rates, but is (arguably) the least understood and least welldeveloped in terms of automation. Robotic vision would seem to be much further advanced than robotic olfaction. Additionally, this comparison is just in relation to human olfactory performance. A dog's sense of smell overpowers human capability by a factor of 10 000 to 100 000 (dogs having 50 times more olfactory sensors than humans). For this reason, detection (or sniffer) dogs are extensively used in search and rescue, or to search for illicit substances, while healthcare applications include Diabetes Assist Dogs which are trained to monitor smells in the air for a specific scent on the human breath that is related to rapidly dropping or low blood sugar levels, and to alert the person with diabetes. Critically, the dog is detecting a change in the volatile organic compound (VOC) information. This information is carried by the chemicals that are naturally emitted by all humans through exhalation, cutaneous respiration (skin gas exchange), or perspiration.

AB - Of the five traditional exteroceptive senses-sight (vision), hearing (audition), taste (gustation), touch (somatosensation), and smell (olfaction)-olfaction has one of lowest data rates, but is (arguably) the least understood and least welldeveloped in terms of automation. Robotic vision would seem to be much further advanced than robotic olfaction. Additionally, this comparison is just in relation to human olfactory performance. A dog's sense of smell overpowers human capability by a factor of 10 000 to 100 000 (dogs having 50 times more olfactory sensors than humans). For this reason, detection (or sniffer) dogs are extensively used in search and rescue, or to search for illicit substances, while healthcare applications include Diabetes Assist Dogs which are trained to monitor smells in the air for a specific scent on the human breath that is related to rapidly dropping or low blood sugar levels, and to alert the person with diabetes. Critically, the dog is detecting a change in the volatile organic compound (VOC) information. This information is carried by the chemicals that are naturally emitted by all humans through exhalation, cutaneous respiration (skin gas exchange), or perspiration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058189061&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8558770

U2 - 10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103

DO - 10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85058189061

VL - 37

SP - 16

EP - 19

IS - 4

M1 - 8558770

ER -

Stark E, Pitt J, Nur Wicaksono A, Milanovic K, Lush V, Hoover S. Odorveillance and the Ethics of Robotic Olfaction [Opinion]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 2018 Dec 4;37(4):16-19. 8558770. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2018.2876103