skip to main content
10.1145/3532720.3535673acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
course

State of the art in telepresence

Published:02 August 2022Publication History
First page image

References

  1. Y. Pan and K. Mitchell. Improving VIP viewer gaze estimation and engagement using adaptive dynamic anamorphosis. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 2021Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Y. Pan and A. Steed. Effects of 3D Perspective on Gaze Estimation with a Multiview Autostereoscopic Display. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 2016Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Y. Pan and A. Steed. A gaze-preserving cylindrical multiview telepresence system. ACM CHI Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Canada, April 26-May 1, 2014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Y. Pan, W. Steptoe and A. Steed. Comparing flat and spherical displays in a trust scenario in avatar-mediated interaction. ACM CHI Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Canada, April 26-May 1, 2014Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Y. Pan, R. Zhang, J. Wang, N. Chen, Y. Qiu, Y. Ding, K. Mitchell. MienCap: Performance-Based Facial Animation with Live Mood Dynamics. IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces, 2022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jeremy N Bailenson, Jim Blascovich, Andrew C Beall, and Jack M Loomis. 2003. Interpersonal distance in immersive virtual environments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29, 7 (2003), 819--833.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Jeremy N Bailenson, Kimberly R Swinth, Crystal L Hoyt, Susan Persky, Alex Dimov, and Jim Blascovich. 2005. The independent and interactive effects of embodied-agent appearance and behavior on self-report, cognitive, and behavioral markers of copresence in immersive virtual environments. Presence 14, 4 (2005), 379--393.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Christoph Bartneck, Dana Kulić, Elizabeth Croft, and Susana Zoghbi. 2009. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Lauren Buck and Rachel McDonnell. 2022. Security and Privacy in the Metaverse: The Threat of the Digital Human.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tyler J. Burleigh, Jordan R. Schoenherr, and Guy L. Lacroix. 2013. Does the Uncanny Valley exist? An empirical test of the relationship between eeriness and the human likeness of digitally created faces. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 759--771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ylva Ferstl, Elena Kokkinara, and Rachel McDonnell. 2017. Facial Features of Non-player Creatures Can Influence Moral Decisions in Video Games. ACM Transaction on Applied Perception 15, 1, Article 4 (2017), 12 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Ylva Ferstl and Rachel McDonnell. 2018. A Perceptual Study on the Manipulation of Facial Features for Trait Portrayal in Virtual Agents. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVA). 281--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ylva Ferstl, Michael McKay, and Rachel McDonnell. 2021. Facial Feature Manipulation for Trait Portrayal in Realistic and Cartoon-Rendered Characters. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 18, 4, Article 22 (oct 2021), 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Rebecca Fribourg, Etienne Peillard, and Rachel McDonnell. 2021. Mirror, Mirror on My Phone: Investigating Dimensions of Self-Face Perception Induced by Augmented Reality Filters. In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). 470--478. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Maia Garau, Mel Slater, Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, Andrea Brogni, Anthony Steed, and M Angela Sasse. 2003. The impact of avatar realism and eye gaze control on perceived quality of communication in a shared immersive virtual environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 529--536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shawn N. Geniole, Thomas F. Denson, Barnaby J. Dixson, Justin M. Carré, and Cheryl M. McCormick. 2015. Evidence from Meta-Analyses of the Facial Width-to-Height Ratio as an Evolved Cue of Threat. PloS one 10, 7 (2015), e0132726.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Geoffrey Gorisse, Olivier Christmann, Samory Houzangbe, and Simon Richir. 2019. From Robot to Virtual Doppelganger: Impact of Visual Fidelity of Avatars Controlled in Third-Person Perspective on Embodiment and Behavior in Immersive Virtual Environments. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6 (2019), 8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Darragh Higgins, Donal Egan, Rebecca Fribourg, Benjamin Cowan, and Rachel McDonnell. 2021a. Ascending from the Valley: Can State-of-the-Art Photorealism Avoid the Uncanny?. In ACM Symposium on Applied Perception 2021 (SAP '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 5 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Darragh Higgins, Rebecca Fribourg, and Rachel McDonnell. 2021b. Remotely Perceived: Investigating the Influence of Valence on Self-Perception and Social Experience for Dyadic Video-Conferencing With Personalized Avatars. Frontiers in Virtual Reality 2 (2021). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Chin-Chang Ho and Karl F. MacDorman. 2010. Revisiting the Uncanny Valley theory: Developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Computers in Human Behavior 26, 6 (2010), 1508--1518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Elena Kokkinara and Rachel McDonnell. 2015. Animation realism affects perceived character appeal of a self-virtual face. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGGRAPH Conference on Motion in Games. Acm, 221--226.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Fang Ma and Xueni Pan. 2022. Visual Fidelity Effects on Expressive Self-avatar in Virtual Reality: First Impressions Matter. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). 57--65. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Karl F. MacDorman, Robert D. Green, Chin-Chang Ho, and Clinton T. Koch. 2009. Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior 25, 3 (2009), 695--710.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Antonella Maselli and Mel Slater. 2013. The building blocks of the full body ownership illusion. Frontiers in human neuroscience 7, 83 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Rachel McDonnell, Martin Breidt, and Heinrich H. Bülthoff. 2012. Render me real? Investigating the effect of render style on the perception of animated virtual humans. ACM Transaction on Graphics 31, 4 (2012), 91:1--91:11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Masahiro Mori, Karl F. MacDorman, and Norri Kageki. 2012. The Uncanny Valley [From the field]. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine 19, 2 (2012), 98--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Kristin Nowak. 2001. The influence of anthropomorphism on social judgment in social virtual environments. In Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Soo Oh, Jeremy Bailenson, Nicole Krämer, and Benjamin Li. 2016. Let the Avatar Brighten Your Smile: Effects of Enhancing Facial Expressions in Virtual Environments. PLOS ONE 11 (09 2016), e0161794. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ayse P. Saygin, Thierry Chaminade, Hiroshi Ishiguro, Jon Driver, and Chris Frith. 2012. The thing that should not be: Predictive coding and the Uncanny Valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions. Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience 7, 4 (2012), 413--422.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Jun'ichiro Seyama and Ruth S. Nagayama. 2007. The Uncanny Valley: Effect of Realism on the Impression of Artificial Human Faces. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 16, 4 (2007), 337--351.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Mel Slater, Daniel Pérez Marcos, Henrik Ehrsson, and Maria V Sanchez-Vives. 2009. Inducing illusory ownership of a virtual body. Frontiers in neuroscience 3 (2009), 29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. booktitle=Scientific American Theodore Kim. 2020. The Racist Legacy of Computer-Generated Humans. https://doi.org/3thBeyeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pisut Wisessing, John Dingliana, and Rachel McDonnell. 2016. Perception of Lighting and Shading for Animated Virtual Characters. In Proc. of ACM Symp. of Applied Perception (SAP). 25--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Pisut Wisessing, Katja Zibrek, Douglas W. Cunningham, John Dingliana, and Rachel McDonnell. 2020. Enlighten Me: Importance of Brightness and Shadow for Character Emotion and Appeal. ACM Trans. Graph. 39, 3, Article 19 (April 2020), 12 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Nick Yee, Jeremy N Bailenson, and Kathryn Rickertsen. 2007. A Meta-analysis of the Impact of the Inclusion and Realism of Human-like Faces on User Experiences in Interfaces. In Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '07). 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lesslie A. Zebrowitz, Luminita Voinescu, and Mary Ann Collins. 1996. "wideeyed" and "crooked-faced": Determinants of perceived and real honesty across the life span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12, 12 (1996), 1258--1269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Eduard Zell, Carlos Aliaga, Adrian Jarabo, Katja Zibrek, Diego Gutierrez, Rachel McDonnell, and Mario Botsch. 2015. To Stylize or Not to Stylize?: The Effect of Shape and Material Stylization on the Perception of Computer-generated Faces. ACM Transactions on Graphics 34, 6, Article 184 (2015), 184:1--184:12 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Katja Zibrek, Elena Kokkinara, and Rachel McDonnell. 2018. The Effect of Realistic Appearance of Virtual Characters in Immersive Environments-Does the Character's Personality Play a Role? IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 4 (2018), 1681--1690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Katja Zibrek, Sean Martin, and Rachel McDonnell. 2019. Is Photorealism Important for Perception of Expressive Virtual Humans in Virtual Reality? ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 16, 3, Article 14 (sep 2019), 19 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Katja Zibrek and Rachel McDonnell. 2019. Social Presence and Place Illusion Are Affected by Photorealism in Embodied VR. In Motion, Interaction and Games (MIG '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 7 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., & Loutfi, A. (2013). A Review of Mobile Robotic Telepresence [Review Article]. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Robillard, J. M., Cleland, I., Hoey, J., & Nugent, C. (2018). Ethical adoption: A new imperative in the development of technology for dementia. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 14(9), 1104--1113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Robillard, J. M., Goldman, I. P., Prescott, T. J., & Michaud, F. (2020). Addressing the Ethics of Telepresence Applications Through End-User Engagement. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease: JAD, 76(2), 457--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Robillard, J. M., & Hoey, J. (2018). Emotion and Motivation in Cognitive Assistive Technologies for Dementia. Computer, 51(3), 24--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Robillard, J. M., Lai, J.-A., Wu, J. M., Feng, T. L., & Hayden, S. (2018). Patient perspectives of the experience of a computerized cognitive assessment in a clinical setting. Alzheimer's & Dementia (New York, N. Y.), 4, 297--303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

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
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGGRAPH '22: ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 Courses
    August 2022
    2416 pages
    ISBN:9781450393621
    DOI:10.1145/3532720

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 2 August 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • course

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,822of8,601submissions,21%

    Upcoming Conference

    SIGGRAPH '24
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)86
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader