Assessing Mobile Robotic Telepresence Based On Measures of Social Telepresence
The feedbacks obtained regarding the sense of
presence from pilot users operating a Mobile Robotic presence
(MRP) system to visit a simulated museum are reported in this paper.
The aim is to investigate how much the perception of system’s
usefulness and ease of use is affected by operators’ sense of social
telepresence (presence) in the remote location. Therefore, scenarios
of visiting a museum are simulated and the user operators are
supposed to perform some regular tasks inside the remote
environment including interaction with local users, navigation and
visiting the artworks. Participants were divided into two groups,
those who had previous experience of operation and interaction with
a MRP system and those who never had experience. Based on the
results, both groups provided different feedbacks. Moreover, there
was a significant association between user’s sense of presence and
their perception of system usefulness and ease of use.
[1] Sheridan, T.B., “Musings on telepresence and virtual presence,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 1, pp. 120-126,
Jan. 1992.
[2] Heeter, C., “Being there: The subjective experience of presence,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 1, pp. 262-271,
1992.
[3] Biocca, F., “The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual
Environments,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 3,
1997.
[4] Sacau, A., et al., “Presence in Computer-Mediated Environments: A
short review of the main concepts, theories and trends,” in Proc. of the
IADIS 2003.
[5] Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie, The social psychology of
telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley, 1976.
[6] Walther, J.B. and M.R. Parks, “Cues filtered out, cues filtered in:
Computer-mediated communication and relationships,” in Handbook of
interpersonal communication, 2002. 3, pp. 529-563.
[7] Argyle, M. and J. Dean, “Eye-contact, distance and affiliation,” in
Sociometry, vol. 28, pp. 289-304, 1965.
[8] Weiming, S., &Conseil national de recherches du Canada, Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Design, 2001(NRC Research Press).
[9] The International Society for Presence Research (ISPR), Presense
Defined, http://ispr.info/, July 2014.
[10] Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J. Gregg, “The networked minds measure of
social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity,”
in 4th annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA,
2001.
[11] Rettie, R., “Connectedness, awareness and social presence,” in online
proceedings of PRESENCE, 2003.
[12] Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J.K. Burgoon, “Toward a more robust theory
and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 12, no. 5, pp.
456-480, 2003.
[13] Picciano, A.G., “Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course,” Journal of
Asynchronous learning networks, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21-40, 2002.
[14] Gunawardena, C.N., “Social presence theory and implications for
interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences,” in
International journal of educational telecommunications, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 147-166, 1995.
[15] Garrison, D.R., T. Anderson, and W. Archer, “Critical inquiry in a textbased
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education,” The
internet and higher education, vol. 2, no. 2-3, pp. 87-105, 1999.
[16] Tu, C.-H. and M. Corry, “Social presence and critical thinking for online
learning,” in Annual Meeting of American Educational Research
Association, 2002.
[17] Witmer, B.G. and M.J. Singer, “Measuring presence in virtual
environments: A presence questionnaire,” Presence: Teleoperators and
virtual environments, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 225-240, 1998.
[18] Nowak, K., “Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence
and presence as transportation,” in Presence 2001 Conference,
Philadelphia, PA, 2001.
[19] Huguet, P., et al., “Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further
evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation,” Journal of
personality and social psychology, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 1011-25, 1999.
[20] Hazemi, R. and S. Hailes, The Digital University-Building a Learning
Community, Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer
Publication, 2002.
[21] Li, H., Daugherty, T., &Biocca, F. (2001). Feeling the presence of
product: Consumer learning from virtual experience. Paper presented at
the American marketing association.
[22] Tu, C.-H., “The measurement of social presence in an online learning
environment,” International Journal on E-learning, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 34-
45, 2002.
[23] Blocher, J.M., Self-regulation of strategies and motivation to enhance
interaction and social presence in computer-mediated communication.
Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, 1997.
[24] Gunawardena, C.N. and F.J. Zittle, “Social presence as a predictor of
satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment,”
American journal of distance education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 8-26, 1997.
[25] David Sirkin, G.V., John Tang, George Robertson, Taemie Kim,
KoriInkpen, Mara Sedlins, Bongshin Lee and Mike Sinclair, “Motion
and attention in a kinetic videoconferencing proxy, ” in Human-
Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2011, pp. 162-180, 2011.
[26] Nakanishi, H., et al., “Minimum movement matters: impact of robotmounted
cameras on social telepresence. in Proceedings of the 2008
ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work,” in
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, NY, USA, P 303-312, 2008.
[27] Nakanishi, H., K. Kato, and H. Ishiguro. “Zoom cameras and movable
displays enhance social telepresence,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011.
[28] Kristoffersson, A., S. Coradeschi, and A. Loutfi. “Towards evaluation of
social robotic telepresence based on measures of social and spatial
presence,” in 1st Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence held at HRI
2011.
[29] Kristoffersson, A., K.S. Eklundh, and A. Loutfi, “Measuring the quality
of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence: a pilot’s perspective,”
International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89-101, 2013
[30] Sylaiou, S., et al., “Exploring the relationship between presence and
enjoyment in a virtual museum,” International journal of humancomputer
studies, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 243-253, 2010.
[31] Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass., How people treat computers,
television, and new media like real people and places, CSLI Publications
and Cambridge university press, 1996.
[1] Sheridan, T.B., “Musings on telepresence and virtual presence,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 1, pp. 120-126,
Jan. 1992.
[2] Heeter, C., “Being there: The subjective experience of presence,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 1, pp. 262-271,
1992.
[3] Biocca, F., “The Cyborg's Dilemma: Progressive Embodiment in Virtual
Environments,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 3,
1997.
[4] Sacau, A., et al., “Presence in Computer-Mediated Environments: A
short review of the main concepts, theories and trends,” in Proc. of the
IADIS 2003.
[5] Short, J., E. Williams, and B. Christie, The social psychology of
telecommunications. New York, NY: John Wiley, 1976.
[6] Walther, J.B. and M.R. Parks, “Cues filtered out, cues filtered in:
Computer-mediated communication and relationships,” in Handbook of
interpersonal communication, 2002. 3, pp. 529-563.
[7] Argyle, M. and J. Dean, “Eye-contact, distance and affiliation,” in
Sociometry, vol. 28, pp. 289-304, 1965.
[8] Weiming, S., &Conseil national de recherches du Canada, Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Design, 2001(NRC Research Press).
[9] The International Society for Presence Research (ISPR), Presense
Defined, http://ispr.info/, July 2014.
[10] Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J. Gregg, “The networked minds measure of
social presence: Pilot test of the factor structure and concurrent validity,”
in 4th annual International Workshop on Presence, Philadelphia, PA,
2001.
[11] Rettie, R., “Connectedness, awareness and social presence,” in online
proceedings of PRESENCE, 2003.
[12] Biocca, F., C. Harms, and J.K. Burgoon, “Toward a more robust theory
and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria,”
Presence: Teleoperators and virtual environments, vol. 12, no. 5, pp.
456-480, 2003.
[13] Picciano, A.G., “Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction,
presence, and performance in an online course,” Journal of
Asynchronous learning networks, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21-40, 2002.
[14] Gunawardena, C.N., “Social presence theory and implications for
interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences,” in
International journal of educational telecommunications, vol. 1, no. 2,
pp. 147-166, 1995.
[15] Garrison, D.R., T. Anderson, and W. Archer, “Critical inquiry in a textbased
environment: Computer conferencing in higher education,” The
internet and higher education, vol. 2, no. 2-3, pp. 87-105, 1999.
[16] Tu, C.-H. and M. Corry, “Social presence and critical thinking for online
learning,” in Annual Meeting of American Educational Research
Association, 2002.
[17] Witmer, B.G. and M.J. Singer, “Measuring presence in virtual
environments: A presence questionnaire,” Presence: Teleoperators and
virtual environments, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 225-240, 1998.
[18] Nowak, K., “Defining and differentiating copresence, social presence
and presence as transportation,” in Presence 2001 Conference,
Philadelphia, PA, 2001.
[19] Huguet, P., et al., “Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further
evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation,” Journal of
personality and social psychology, vol. 77, no. 5, pp. 1011-25, 1999.
[20] Hazemi, R. and S. Hailes, The Digital University-Building a Learning
Community, Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer
Publication, 2002.
[21] Li, H., Daugherty, T., &Biocca, F. (2001). Feeling the presence of
product: Consumer learning from virtual experience. Paper presented at
the American marketing association.
[22] Tu, C.-H., “The measurement of social presence in an online learning
environment,” International Journal on E-learning, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 34-
45, 2002.
[23] Blocher, J.M., Self-regulation of strategies and motivation to enhance
interaction and social presence in computer-mediated communication.
Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, 1997.
[24] Gunawardena, C.N. and F.J. Zittle, “Social presence as a predictor of
satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment,”
American journal of distance education, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 8-26, 1997.
[25] David Sirkin, G.V., John Tang, George Robertson, Taemie Kim,
KoriInkpen, Mara Sedlins, Bongshin Lee and Mike Sinclair, “Motion
and attention in a kinetic videoconferencing proxy, ” in Human-
Computer Interaction–INTERACT 2011, pp. 162-180, 2011.
[26] Nakanishi, H., et al., “Minimum movement matters: impact of robotmounted
cameras on social telepresence. in Proceedings of the 2008
ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work,” in
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, NY, USA, P 303-312, 2008.
[27] Nakanishi, H., K. Kato, and H. Ishiguro. “Zoom cameras and movable
displays enhance social telepresence,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2011.
[28] Kristoffersson, A., S. Coradeschi, and A. Loutfi. “Towards evaluation of
social robotic telepresence based on measures of social and spatial
presence,” in 1st Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence held at HRI
2011.
[29] Kristoffersson, A., K.S. Eklundh, and A. Loutfi, “Measuring the quality
of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence: a pilot’s perspective,”
International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 89-101, 2013
[30] Sylaiou, S., et al., “Exploring the relationship between presence and
enjoyment in a virtual museum,” International journal of humancomputer
studies, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 243-253, 2010.
[31] Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass., How people treat computers,
television, and new media like real people and places, CSLI Publications
and Cambridge university press, 1996.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:69618", author = "A. Bagherzadhalimi and E. Di Maria", title = "Assessing Mobile Robotic Telepresence Based On Measures of Social Telepresence", abstract = "The feedbacks obtained regarding the sense of
presence from pilot users operating a Mobile Robotic presence
(MRP) system to visit a simulated museum are reported in this paper.
The aim is to investigate how much the perception of system’s
usefulness and ease of use is affected by operators’ sense of social
telepresence (presence) in the remote location. Therefore, scenarios
of visiting a museum are simulated and the user operators are
supposed to perform some regular tasks inside the remote
environment including interaction with local users, navigation and
visiting the artworks. Participants were divided into two groups,
those who had previous experience of operation and interaction with
a MRP system and those who never had experience. Based on the
results, both groups provided different feedbacks. Moreover, there
was a significant association between user’s sense of presence and
their perception of system usefulness and ease of use.
", keywords = "Mobile Robotic Telepresence, Museum, Social
Telepresence, Usability test.", volume = "9", number = "2", pages = "642-8", }
