Fig 1.
The main menu of the DAVE application.
Fig 2.
The virtual indoor living room environment.
Fig 3.
a) Behaviours in the non-reactive scenario; (1) lying down, (2) standing, looking left and right with tail wagging, (3) sitting with mouth open with relaxed tail, (4) Sniffing ground and (5) Step forward with left paw. B) Behaviours in the aggressive scenario at different levels (L); (L0) lying down, (L1-4) lip lick and yawn with increasing frequency, (L5a) paw raise, (L5b) paw raise and head turn. (L6) walking backwards, (L7) crouched with ears back, tail tucked underneath with some teeth showing (L8) crouched, growling, and showing teeth and (L9) Lunge/bite.
Fig 4.
Levels of aggression and behaviours of the dog model (based on the Canine Ladder of Aggression [27]).
Fig 5.
Pilot study screening and recruitment process.
Table 1.
Participant demographics and dog related questions.
Fig 6.
a) A boxplot of the closest head position in the non-reactive and aggressive scenarios where the aggressive scenario was first (AN) or the non-reactive scenario was first (NA). b) A boxplot comparison showing the closest distance the left- and right-hand got to the dog in non-reactive and aggressive scenarios, where the aggressive scenario was undertaken first (AN) or non-reactive first (NA).
Fig 7.
A boxplot displaying the median total distance travelled in each scenario (non-reactive and aggressive) for group NA and AN.
Table 2.
Categorised open-ended responses to the question “Did you notice anything about the behaviour(s) of the dog” for both non-reactive and aggressive exploration scenario.
Multiple descriptions were coded separately (e.g., cowered and bared teeth were coded in two separate categories) per respondent.
Table 3.
Vocalisations reported by participants in an open-ended question post aggression scenario (multiple responses per person).
Fig 8.
Boxplots for total presence scores and a) combined groups (NA and AN) by scenario (left) and b) comparisons between group NA and AN by scenario (right).