Assessing Mobile Robotic Telepresence Based On Measures of Social Telepresence

Authors: A. Bagherzadhalimi, E. Di Maria

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.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1100414

References:

[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.