Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring the Quality of Interaction in Mobile Robotic Telepresence: A Pilot’s Perspective

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article presents a method for measuring the quality of interaction in social mobile robotic telepresence. The methodology is in part based on Adam Kendon’s theory of F-formations. The theory is based on observations of how bodies naturally orient themselves during interaction between people in real life settings. In addition, two presence questionnaires (Temple Presence Inventory and Networked Minds Social Presence Inventory), designed to measure the users’ perceptions of others and the environment when experienced through a communication medium are used. The perceived presence and ease of use are correlated to the spatial formations between the robot and an actor. The proposed methodology is validated experimentally on a dataset consisting of interactions between an elder (actor) and 21 different users being trained in piloting a mobile robotic telepresence unit. The evaluation has shown that these tools are suitable for evaluating mobile robotic telepresence and also that correlations between the tools used exist. Further, these results give important guidelines on how to improve the interface in order to increase the quality of interaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hüttenrauch [14] discusses the conversion of distances into centimeters and stresses the need to refer to the original distances in feet by Hall, p. 41.

  2. The alarm operators respond to alarms coming from elderly who by pushing a button on a necklace get in direct contact with the service. The training session was a preparation for participation in a larger study in which the Giraff would be deployed, used and evaluated with two elderly in a real home. One of which was using a wheelchair.

  3. The environment [27] is located at AASS (Center for Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems) which is a research center at Örebro University, Sweden.

  4. The original instruction movie for the participants was Swedish. An English version can be downloaded by clicking on “Giraff User’s Guide” at: http://www.oru.se/ExCITE/Part-3/User-manuals/English/.

References

  1. Adalgeirsson SO (2009) Mebot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence. Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  2. Adalgeirsson SO, Breazeal C (2010) Mebot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence. In: Proceedings of HRI 2010, pp 15–22

    Google Scholar 

  3. Argyle M, Dean J (1965) Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry 28:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beer JM, Takayama L (2011) Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In: Proceedings of HRI 2011, pp 19–26

    Google Scholar 

  5. Biocca F, Harms C (2011) Guide to the networked minds social presence inventory. http://cogprints.org/6743/. Accessed 6 November 2011

  6. Biocca F, Harms C (2011) Networked minds social presence inventory (scales only version 1.2). Tech. rep, M.I.N.D. Labs, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA (2002). http://cogprints.org/6742/. Accessed 6 November 2011

  7. Cohen B, Lanir J, Stone R, Gurevich P (2011) Requirements and design considerations for a fully immersive robotic telepresence system. In: Proceedings of HRI 2011 workshop on social robotic telepresence, pp 16–22

    Google Scholar 

  8. Giraff: http://www.giraff.org. Accessed 6 Nov 2011

  9. Gottdiener M (1979) Field research and video tape. Sociol Inq 49(4):59–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall ET (1966) The hidden dimension: man’s use of space in public and private. Bodley Head, London

    Google Scholar 

  11. Heath C, Luff P (1991) Disembodied conduct: communication through video in a multi-media environment. In: Proceedings of CHI 1991, pp 99–103

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hoffman L, Krämer NC (2011) How should an artificial entity be embodied? Comparing the effects of a physically present robot and its virtual representation. In: Proceedings of HRI workshop on social robotic telepresence (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hornecker E (2005) A design theme for tangible interaction: embodied facilitation. In: Proceedings of ECSCW 2005, pp 23–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hüttenrauch H (2006) From hci to hri: designing interaction for a service robot. PhD thesis, KTH Computer Science and Communication

  15. Hüttenrauch H, Topp E, Severinson-Eklundh K (2009) The art of gate-crashing bringing hri into users’ homes. Interact Stud 10(3):275–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jouppi N, Thomas S (2005) Telepresence systems with automatic preservation of user head height, local rotation, and remote translation. In: Proceedings of ICRA 2005, pp 62–68

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kendon A (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kendon A (2010) Spacing and orientation in co-present interaction. In: Development of multimodal interfaces: active listening and synchrony. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5967, pp 1–15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Severinson-Eklundh K, Loutfi A (2011) Sense of presence in a robotic telepresence domain. In: Proceedings of UAHCI 2011, vol II, pp 479–487

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kuzuoka H, Suzuki Y, Yamashita J, Yamazaki K (2010) Reconfiguring spatial formation arrangement by robot body orientation. In: Proceedings of HRI 2010, pp 285–292

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lee MK, Takayama L (2011) “Now, i have a body”: uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp 33–42

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lombard M, Ditton T (2004) A literature-based presence measurement instrument the temple presence inventory (tpi) (beta). Tech. rep., M.I.N.D. Labs, Temple University, Pennsylvania, USA. http://matthewlombard.com/research/P2scales_11-04.doc. Accessed 6 November 2011

  23. Marshall P, Rogers Y, Pantidi N (2011) Using f-formations to analyse spatial patterns of interaction in physical environments. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2011, pp 445–454

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meisner R, von Lehn D, Heath C, Burch A, Gammon B, Reisman M (2007) Exhibiting performance: co-participation in science centres and museums. Int J Sci Educ 29:1531–1555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Michaud F, Boissy P, Labonté D, Corriveau H, Grant A, Lauria M, Cloutier R, Roux MA, Iannuzzi D, Royer M-P (2007) Telepresence robot for home care assistance. In: Proceedings of AAAI spring symposium on multidisciplinary collaboration for socially assistive robotics 2007

    Google Scholar 

  26. QB: http://anybots.com. Accessed 6 November 2011

  27. Saffiotti A, Broxvall M (2005) PEIS ecologies: ambient intelligence meets autonomous robotics. In: Proc of the int conf on smart objects and ambient intelligence (sOc-EUSAI), Grenoble, France, pp 275–280

    Google Scholar 

  28. Texai: http://www.willowgarage.com/pages/texai/overview

  29. Tsui KM, Desai M, Yanco HA, Uhlik C (2011) Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In: HRI’11, pp 11–18

    Google Scholar 

  30. VGo: http://www.vgocom.com/. Accessed 6 November 2011

  31. Yamaoka F, Kanda T, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2010) A model of proximity control for information-presenting robots. IEEE Trans Robot 26(1):187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Silvia Coradeschi for her support in the project and Martin Längkvist and Federico Pecora for participating in the experiment. We would also like to thank Rafael Muñoz Salinas, Enrique Yeguas Bolívar and Luis Díaz Mas for technical support with video recording.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center of Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Annica Kristoffersson & Amy Loutfi

  2. School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden

    Kerstin Severinson Eklundh

Authors
  1. Annica Kristoffersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerstin Severinson Eklundh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amy Loutfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annica Kristoffersson.

Additional information

The ExCITE project has been supported by EU under the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme (AAL-2009-2-125).

Appendix: Supporting Definitions on Presence

Appendix: Supporting Definitions on Presence

The level of co-presence “is influenced by the degree to which the user and the agent appear to share an environment together, p. 5” [5]. The co-presence as used in this study consists of only four questions:

  1. 1.

    I felt that x and I were in the same place.

  2. 2.

    I believe that x felt as if we were in the same place.

  3. 3.

    I was aware of that x was there.

  4. 4.

    x was aware that I was there.

The attentional engagement “seek to measure the degree to which the users report attention to the other and the degree to which they perceive the other’s level of attention towards them, p. 10” [5]. The Attentional engagement as used in this study only contains two questions:

  1. 1.

    I payed attention to x.

  2. 2.

    x payed attention to me.

Comprehension is the degree to which the user and the other understand their respective intentions, thoughts etc. In total six questions were asked in the dimension, examples include:

  1. 1.

    I could communicate my intentions to x in a clear way.

  2. 2.

    x could communicate his/her intentions to me in a clear way.

  3. 3.

    My thoughts were clear to x.

  4. 4.

    I could understand what x meant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kristoffersson, A., Severinson Eklundh, K. & Loutfi, A. Measuring the Quality of Interaction in Mobile Robotic Telepresence: A Pilot’s Perspective. Int J of Soc Robotics 5, 89–101 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0166-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0166-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation