skip to main content
research-article

From Being There to Watching: Shared and Dedicated Telepresence Robot Usage at Academic Conferences

Published:13 December 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Telepresence attendance at academic conferences is now a reality and allows people who cannot attend in person with the opportunity to still be “present.” This is valuable for people who face accessibility challenges, cost or travel restrictions, or limited time for travel. We have deployed and studied the use of telepresence robots at three ACM conferences, Ubicomp/ISWC 2014, CSCW 2016, and CHI 2016, ranging from remote users having dedicated telepresence robots to users sharing telepresence robots both synchronously and asynchronously. In this article, we report on the telepresence offerings along with the user behaviors, experiences, and the social norms found for remote conference attendance. Our results across the studies focus around three main themes: shared vs. dedicated robot usage, identity presentation and the value and challenges associated with it; and local in-person support through proxies and instant messaging backchannels. These themes point to three different areas of design exploration for telepresence robots, pointing out the limitations of existing design solutions with respect to each theme, areas for future telepresence design work, and the value in considering varied telepresence robot solutions, including both dedicated and shared telepresence robots.

References

  1. Morgan G. Ames, Janet Go, Joseph ‘Jofish’ Kaye, and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2010. Making love in the network closet: the benefits and work of family videochat. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10). ACM, New York, NY, 145--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Victoria Bellotti and Abigail Sellen. 1993. Design for privacy in ubiquitous computing environments. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’93). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Milan, 77--92. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Victoria Bellotti. 1998. Design for privacy in multimedia computing and communications environments. In Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, P. E. Agre and M. Rotenberg (Eds.). MIT Press, 63--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sara A. Bly, Steve R. Harrison, and Susan Irwin. 1993. Media spaces: Bringing people together in a video, audio, and computing environment. Commun. ACM 36, 1 (1993), 28--46. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Michael Boyle and Saul Greenberg. 2005. The language of privacy: Learning from video media space analysis and design. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 2 (2005), 328--370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jed R. Brubaker, Gina Venolia, and John C. Tang. 2012. Focusing on shared experiences: Moving beyond the camera in video communication. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’12). ACM, New York, NY, 96--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Thomas Erickson, N. Sadat Shami, Wendy A. Kellogg, and David W. Levine. 2011. Synchronous interaction among hundreds: an evaluation of a conference in an avatar-based virtual environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 503--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Robert S. Fish, Robert E. Kraut, and Barbara L. Chalfonte. 1990. The VideoWindow system in informal communication. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’90). ACM, New York, NY, 1--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Azadeh Forghani and Carman Neustaedter. 2014. The routines and needs of grandparents and parents for grandparent-grandchild conversations over distance. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 4177--4186. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Erving Goffman. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Richard Harper, Sean Rintel, Rod Watson, and Kenton O'Hara. 2017. The ‘Interrogative Gaze’: Making video calling and messaging ‘accountable’. In Pragmatics, Special Issue: Interpersonal video communication as a site of human sociality. R. Harper, C. Licoppe, and D. Watson (Eds.), vol. 27, 319--350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Akira Hayamizu, Michita Imai, Keisuke Nakamura, and Kazuhiro Nakadai. 2014. Volume adaptation and visualization by modeling the volume level in noisy environments for telepresence system. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 67--74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Serena Hillman, Azadeh Forghani, Carolyn Pang, Carman Neustaedter, and Tejinder Judge. 2014. Conducting interviews with remote participants. In Studying and Designing Technology for Domestic Life: Lessons from Home. Tejinder K. Judge and Carman Neustaedter (Eds.), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Scott E. Hudson and Ian Smith. 1996. Techniques for addressing fundamental privacy and disruption tradeoffs in awareness support systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’96). Mark S. Ackerman (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, 248--257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Michael L. W. Jones. 2000. Collaborative virtual conferences: using exemplars to shape future research questions. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments (CVE’00). Elizabeth Churchill and Martin Reddy (Eds.), ACM, New York, NY, 19--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Steven Johnson, Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2015. Can you see me now?: How field of view affects collaboration in robotic telepresence. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). ACM, New York, NY, 2397--2406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Norman P. Jouppi. 2002. First steps towards mutually-immersive mobile telepresence. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’02). ACM, New York, NY, 354--363. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Tejinder K. Judge and Carman Neustaedter. 2010. Sharing conversation and sharing life: Video conferencing in the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, NY, 655--658. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Tejinder K. Judge, Carman Neustaedter, and Andrew F. Kurtz. 2010. The family window: The design and evaluation of a domestic media space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, NY, 2361--2370. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Tejinder K. Judge, Carman Neustaedter, Steve Harrison, and Andrew Blose. 2011. Family portals: Connecting families through a multifamily media space. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 1205--1214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Atsunobu Kimura, Masayuki Ihara, Minoru Kobayashi, Yoshitsugu Manabe, and Kunihiro Chihara. 2007. Visual feedback: its effect on teleconferencing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Springer-Verlag, LNCS 4553, 491--600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. David S. Kirk, Abigail Sellen, and Xiang Cao. 2010. Home video communication: mediating ‘closeness’. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10). ACM, New York, NY, 135--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kavita Krishnaswamy. 2015. Attending Conferences via Robots. Retrieved from http://www.washington.edu/doit/attending-conferences-robots.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Min Kyung Lee and Leila Takayama. 2011. “Now, i have a body”: Uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 33--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Joseph F. McCarthy and Danah M. Boyd. 2005. Digital backchannels in shared physical spaces: experiences at an academic conference. In Proceedings of the CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’05). ACM, New York, NY, 1641--1644. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Gregor McEwan and Saul Greenberg. 2005. Supporting social worlds with the community bar. In Proceedings of the 2005 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’05). ACM, New York, NY, 21--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Carman Neustaedter, Saul Greenberg, and Michael Boyle. 2006. Blur filtration fails to preserve privacy for home-based video conferencing. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 13, 1 (2006), 1--36. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Carman Neustaedter, Gina Venolia, Jason Procyk, and Daniel Hawkins. 2016. To beam or not to beam: A study of remote telepresence attendance at an academic conference. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work 8 Social Computing (CSCW’16). ACM, New York, NY, 418--431. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Carman Neustaedter and Lillian Yang. 2017. Family communication over distance through telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the CSCW 2016 Workshop on Robots in Groups and Teams at the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Veronica Ahumada Newhart and Judith S. Olson. 2017. My student is a robot: How schools manage telepresence experiences for students. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). ACM, New York, NY, 342--347. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Veronica Newhart, M. Warschauer, and L. Sender. 2016. Virtual inclusion via telepresence robots in the classroom: An exploratory case study. International Journal of Learning Technologies 23, 4 (2016), 9--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Andreas Paepcke, Bianca Soto, Leila Takayama, Frank Koenig, and Blaise Gassend. 2011. Yelling in the hall: using sidetone to address a problem with mobile remote presence systems. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’11). ACM, New York, NY, 107--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Irene Rae, Bilge Mutlu, and Leila Takayama. 2014. Bodies in motion: mobility, presence, and task awareness in telepresence. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, 2153--2162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Irene Rae and Carman Neustaedter. 2017. Robotic telepresence at scale. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). ACM, New York, NY, 313--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Irene Rae, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. 2012. One of the gang: supporting in-group behavior for embodied mediated communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’12). ACM, New York, NY, 3091--3100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Irene Rae, Leila Takayama, and Bilge Mutlu. 2013. The influence of height in robot-mediated communication. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Hayes Raffle, Rafael Ballagas, Glenda Revelle, Hiroshi Horii, Sean Follmer, Janet Go, Emily Reardon, Koichi Mori, Joseph Kaye, and Mirjana Spasojevic. 2010. Family story play: Reading with young children (and elmo) over a distance. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, NY, 1583--1592. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Sean Rintel, Richard Harper, and Kenton O'Hara. 2016. The Tyranny of the everyday in mobile video messaging. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). ACM, New York, NY, 4781--4792. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. N. Sadat Shami, Thomas Erickson, and Wendy Kellogg. 2011. Common ground and small group interaction in large virtual world gatherings. In Proceedings of the ECSCW.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Marc Smith, J. J. Cadiz, and Byron Burkhalter. 2000. Conversation trees and threaded chats. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’00). ACM, New York, NY, 97--105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Suitable Technologies. https://suitabletech.com/products/beam-pro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Shervin Shirmohammadi, Shun-Yu Hu, Wei Tsang Ooi, Gregor Schiele, and Arno Wacker. 2012. Mixing virtual and physical participation: The future of conference attendance? In Proceedings of the Conference on Massively Multiplayer Virtual Environments.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Leila Takayama and Helen Harris. 2013. Presentation of (telepresent) self: on the double-edged effects of mirrors. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, 381--388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. John C. Tang. 2007. Approaching and leave-taking: Negotiating contact in computer-mediated communication. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 14, 1, Article 5 (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Katherine M. Tsui, Munjal Desai, Holly A. Yanco, and Chris Uhlik. 2011. Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-robot Interaction (HRI’11). ACM, New York, NY, 11--18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Gina Venolia, John Tang, Ruy Cervantes, Sara Bly, George Robertson, Bongshin Lee, and Kori Inkpen. 2010. Embodied social proxy: mediating interpersonal connection in hub-and-satellite teams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). ACM, New York, NY, 1049--1058. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Paul M. Vespa, Chad Miller, Xiao Hu, Val Nenov, Farzad Buxey, and Neil A. Martin. 2007. Intensive care unit robotic telepresence facilitates rapid physician response to unstable patients and decreased cost in neurointensive care. Surgical Neurology 67, 4 (2007), 331--337.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Steve Whittaker, David Frohlich, and Owen Daly-Jones. 1994. Informal workplace communication: what is it like and how might we support it? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’94). Beth Adelson, Susan Dumais, and Judith Olson (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, 131--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Patrice L. (Tamar) Weiss, Carolynn P. Whiteley, Jutta Treviranus, and Deborah I. Fels. 2001. PEBBLES: A personal technology for meeting educational, social, and emotional needs of hospitalized children. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 5, 3 (2001), 157--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Lillian Yang, Carman Neustaedter, and Thecla Schiphorst. 2017. Communicating through a telepresence robot: A study of long distance relationships. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA’17). ACM, New York, NY, 3027--3033. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. From Being There to Watching: Shared and Dedicated Telepresence Robot Usage at Academic Conferences

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
      ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 25, Issue 6
      December 2018
      236 pages
      ISSN:1073-0516
      EISSN:1557-7325
      DOI:10.1145/3300063
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 13 December 2018
      • Revised: 1 July 2018
      • Accepted: 1 July 2018
      • Received: 1 February 2018
      Published in tochi Volume 25, Issue 6

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader