Impact of video frame rate on communicative behaviour in two and four party groups

There has been relatively little research on the impact of different levels of video quality on users of multimedia communication systems. This paper describes a study examining the impact of two levels of video frame rate on pairs and groups of four engaged on a design task, looking at one particular aspect of communication, namely reference. It was found that a low frame rate made speakers more communicatively cautious, using longer descriptions and more elaborations to refer to pictures used in the task, possibly as a result of being less certain that they had been understood. This only occurred in the two party groups despite a prediction that groups of four would be affected most by the frame rate manipulation. This study shows that video quality can have subtle effects on communication and that identical levels of quality may have different effects depending on the situation.

[1]  Xiaolan Fu,et al.  Video helps remote work: speakers who need to negotiate common ground benefit from seeing each other , 1999, CHI '99.

[2]  Catherine G. Wolf,et al.  Talking to customers on the Web: a comparison of three voice alternatives , 1998, CSCW '98.

[3]  Takanori Maesako,et al.  HyperMirror: toward pleasant-to-use video mediated communication system , 1998, CSCW '98.

[4]  Michel Hupet,et al.  Efficiency of the Addressees Contribution To the Establishment of References - Comparing Monologues With Dialogs , 1994 .

[5]  Susan R. Fussell Social and Cognitive Processes in Interpersonal Communication: Implications for Advanced Telecommunications Technologies , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Yutaka Matsushita,et al.  Multiparty videoconferencing at virtual social distance: MAJIC design , 1994, CSCW '94.

[7]  Masood Masoodian,et al.  Video Support for Shared Work-Space Interaction: An Empirical Study , 1995, Interact. Comput..

[8]  Peter D. Bricker,et al.  The role of audible and visible back-channel responses in interpersonal communication. , 1977 .

[9]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Contributing to Discourse , 1989, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Mutual knowledge and communicative effectiveness , 1990 .

[11]  M. Angela Sasse,et al.  Evaluating Audio and Video Quality in Low-Cost Multimedia Conferencing Systems , 1996, Interact. Comput..

[12]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  A poor quality video link affects speech but not gaze , 1995, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[13]  Herbert H. Clark,et al.  Grounding in communication , 1991, Perspectives on socially shared cognition.

[14]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  Face-to-face and video mediated communication: a comparison of dialogue structure and task performance , 1997 .

[15]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Some advantages of video conferencing over high-quality audio conferencing: fluency and awareness of attentional focus , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[16]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  Impact of Video-Mediated Communication on Simulated Service Encounters , 1996, Interact. Comput..

[17]  Philip R. Cohen,et al.  Discourse structure and performance efficiency in interactive and non-interactive spoken modalities☆ , 1991 .

[18]  R. Krauss,et al.  Concurrent feedback, confirmation, and the encoding of referents in verbal communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[20]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Referring as a collaborative process , 1986, Cognition.

[21]  R. Krauss,et al.  Effects of Transmission Delay and Access Delay on the Efficiency of Verbal Communication , 1967 .

[22]  Gwyneth Doherty-Sneddon,et al.  Comparison of Face-to-Face and Video-Mediated Interaction , 1996, Interact. Comput..