Bodies in motion: mobility, presence, and task awareness in telepresence

Robotic telepresence systems - videoconferencing systems that allow a remote user to drive around in another location - provide an alternative to video-mediated communications as a way of interacting over distances. These systems, which are seeing increasing use in business and medical settings, are unique in their ability to grant the remote user the ability to maneuver in a distant location. While this mobility promises increased feelings of "being there" for remote users and thus greater support for task collaboration, whether these promises are borne out, providing benefits in task performance, is unknown. To better understand the role that mobility plays in shaping the remote user's sense of presence and its potential benefits, we conducted a two-by-two (system mobility: stationary vs. mobile; task demands for mobility: low vs. high) controlled laboratory experiment. We asked participants (N=40) to collaborate in a construction task with a confederate via a robotic telepresence system. Our results showed that mobility significantly increased the remote user's feelings of presence, particularly in tasks with high mobility requirements, but decreased task performance. Our findings highlight the positive effects of mobility on feelings of "being there," while illustrating the need to design support for effective use of mobility in high-mobility tasks.

[1]  François Michaud,et al.  Telepresence Robot for Home Care Assistance , 2007, AAAI Spring Symposium: Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics.

[2]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  MeBot: A robotic platform for socially embodied telepresence , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[3]  Michael J. Baker,et al.  The role of grounding in collaborative learning tasks , 1999 .

[4]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  The influence of height in robot-mediated communication , 2013, 2013 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[5]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches , 1999 .

[6]  Hiroshi Ishiguro,et al.  Minimum movement matters: impact of robot-mounted cameras on social telepresence , 2008, CSCW.

[7]  Iwaki Toshima,et al.  Sound Localization Using an Acoustical Telepresence Robot: TeleHead II , 2008, PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments.

[8]  Brian Meyers,et al.  Exploring awareness needs and information display preferences between coworkers , 2009, CHI.

[9]  Leila Takayama,et al.  "Now, i have a body": uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace , 2011, CHI.

[10]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware , 1999, TCHI.

[11]  R. W. Root,et al.  Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function, and Technology , 1990 .

[12]  A. Aron,et al.  Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness , 1992 .

[13]  T. McNamara,et al.  Intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  John C. Tang,et al.  Embodied social proxy: mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams , 2010, CHI.

[15]  Milton Chen,et al.  Leveraging the asymmetric sensitivity of eye contact for videoconference , 2002, CHI.

[16]  Jennifer L. Campos,et al.  Active navigation and orientation-free spatial representations , 2004, Memory & cognition.

[17]  Christian Heath,et al.  Disembodied conduct: communication through video in a multi-media office environment , 1991, CHI.

[18]  Michael McKenna,et al.  Interactive viewpoint control and three-dimensional operations , 1992, I3D '92.

[19]  D E Mcgovern HUMAN INTERFACES IN REMOTE DRIVING , 1988 .

[20]  Leila Takayama,et al.  Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, Benefits, and Concerns , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[21]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces , 1992, CSCW '92.

[22]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  MeBot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence , 2010, HRI.

[23]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  In-body experiences: embodiment, control, and trust in robot-mediated communication , 2013, CHI.

[24]  Kellogg S. Booth,et al.  Evaluating 3D task performance for fish tank virtual worlds , 1993, TOIS.

[25]  Jennifer L. Gregg,et al.  The Networked Minds Measure of Social Presence : Pilot Test of the Factor Structure and Concurrent Validity , 2001 .

[26]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[27]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  The effects of tactile feedback and movement alteration on interaction and awareness with digital embodiments , 2013, CHI.

[28]  holly ktsui,et al.  Assistive, Rehabilitation, and Surgical Robots from the Perspective of Medical and Healthcare Professionals , 2007 .

[29]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Telepresence under Exceptional Circumstances: Enriching the Connection to School for Sick Children , 2001, INTERACT.

[30]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers , 1994, CACM.

[31]  Bilge Mutlu,et al.  One of the gang: supporting in-group behavior for embodied mediated communication , 2012, CHI.

[32]  Katherine M. Tsui,et al.  Exploring use cases for telepresence robots , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[33]  G. D. Weeks,et al.  Cooperative versus Conflictive Problem Solving in Three Telecommunication Modes , 1976 .

[34]  Clarence A. Ellis,et al.  Groupware: some issues and experiences , 1991, CACM.

[35]  T. McNamara,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence in Scene Recognition , 1997 .

[36]  Terrence Fong,et al.  Vehicle Teleoperation Interfaces , 2001, Auton. Robots.

[37]  John C. Tang,et al.  Three's company: understanding communication channels in three-way distributed collaboration , 2010, CSCW '10.