Article published In:
Interaction StudiesVol. 15:2 (2014) ► pp.343–357
Assessment of interaction quality in mobile robotic telepresence
An elderly perspective
Annica Kristoffersson | Center of Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems, Örebro UniversitySchool of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
Silvia Coradeschi | Center of Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems, Örebro UniversitySchool of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
Amy Loutfi | Center of Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems, Örebro UniversitySchool of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
In this paper, we focus on spatial formations when interacting via mobile robotic telepresence (MRP) systems. Previous research has found that those who used a MRP system to make a remote visit (pilot users) tended to use different spatial formations from what is typical in human-human interaction. In this paper, we present the results of a study where a pilot user interacted with ten elderly via a MRP system. Intentional deviations from known accepted spatial formations were made in order to study their effect on interaction quality from the local user perspective. Using a retrospective interviews technique, the elderly commented on the interaction and confirmed the importance of adhering to acceptable spatial configurations. The results show that there is a mismatch between pilot user behaviour and local user preference and that it is important to evaluate a MRP system from two perspectives, the pilot user’s and the local user’s. Keywords: F-formations; Mobile Robotic Telepresence; MRP systems; Quality of Interaction; Retrospective Interview; Spatial Formations; Spatial Configurations
References (14)
Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28(3), 289–304. 
Beer, J.M., & Takayama, L. (2011). Mobile remote presence systems for older adults: Acceptance, benefits, and concerns. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’11)
(pp. 19–26).
Hornecker, E. (2005). A design theme for tangible interaction: Embodied facilitation.
Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’05)
(pp. 23–43).
Hüttenrauch, H., Topp, E.A., & Eklundh, K.S. (2009). The art of gate-crashing bringing HRI into users’ homes. Interaction Studies, 10(3), 274–297.
Kendon, A. (1990). Spatial organization in social encounters: The F-formation System. In Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters (pp. 209–238). Cambridge University Press.
Kristoffersson, A., Coradeschi, S., Loutfi, A., & Eklundh, K.S. (2011). An exploratory study of health professionals’ attitudes about robotic telepresence technology. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 291, 263–283.
Kristoffersson, A., Eklundh, K.S., & Loutfi, A. (2013). Measuring the quality of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence a pilot’s perspective. International Journal of Social Robotics, 51, 89–101.
Kuzuoka, H., Suzuki, Y., Yamashita, J., & Yamazaki, K. (2010). Reconfiguring spatial formation arrangement by robot body orientation. In
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’10)
(pp. 285–292).
Lee, M.K., & Takayama, L. (2011). “Now, I have a body”: Uses and social norms for mobile remote presence in the workplace. In
Proceedings of the 29th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11)
(pp. 33–42).
Marshall, P., Rogers, Y., & Pantidi, N. (2011). Using F-formations to analyse spatial patterns of interaction in physical environments. In
Proceedings of ACM CSCW’11 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
(pp. 445–454).
Michaud, F., Boissy, P., Labonté, D., Corriveau, H., Grant, A., & Lauria, M. (2007). Telepresence robot for home care assistance. In
Proceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium on Multidisciplinary Collaboration for Socially Assistive Robotics’07
(pp. 50–55).
Shi, C., Shimada, M., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2011). Spatial formation model for initiating conversation. In
Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems
.
Tsui, K.M., Desai, M., Yanco, H.A., & Uhlik, C. (2011). Exploring use cases for telepresence robots. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI’11)
(pp. 11–18).
Yamaoka, F., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., & Hagita, N. (2010). A model of proximity control for information-presenting robots. IEEE Trans on Robot, 26(1), 187–195.
Cited by (13)
Cited by 13 other publications
Yeo, Yumie, Ying Lau, Wen Wei Ang, Qiao Fen Wong, Hon Lon Tam, Wen Liang Loh, Sai Ho Wong & Siew Tiang Lau
2023. Unpacking older adults’ experiences using mobile telepresence robots: A systematic mixed-studies review. Geriatric Nursing 54 ► pp. 280 ff. 
Isabet, Baptiste, Anne-Sophie Rigaud, Wanji Li & Maribel Pino
2022. Telepresence Robot Intervention to Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation in Older Adults Living at Home (Project DOMIROB): Protocol for a Clinical Nonrandomized Study. JMIR Research Protocols 11:10 ► pp. e40528 ff.
Isabet, Baptiste, Maribel Pino, Manon Lewis, Samuel Benveniste & Anne-Sophie Rigaud
2021. Social Telepresence Robots: A Narrative Review of Experiments Involving Older Adults before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18:7 ► pp. 3597 ff.
Saplacan, Diana, Weria Khaksar & Jim Torresen
2021. 2021 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Its Social Impacts (ARSO), ► pp. 219 ff.
Ha, Van Kha Ly, Rifai Chai & Hung T. Nguyen
2020. A Telepresence Wheelchair with 360-Degree Vision Using WebRTC. Applied Sciences 10:1 ► pp. 369 ff.
Radmard, Sina, AJung Moon & Elizabeth A. Croft
2019. Impacts of Visual Occlusion and Its Resolution in Robot-Mediated Social Collaborations. International Journal of Social Robotics 11:1 ► pp. 105 ff.
Choi, Mina, Rachel Kornfield, Leila Takayama & Bilge Mutlu
2017. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 325 ff.
Hiyama, Atsushi, Akihiro Kosugi, Kentarou Fukuda, Masatomo Kobayashi & Michitaka Hirose
2017. Facilitating Remote Communication Between Senior Communities with Telepresence Robots. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications, Services and Contexts [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 10298], ► pp. 501 ff.
Mitzner, Tracy L, Rachel Stuck, Jordan Q Hartley, Jenay M Beer & Wendy A Rogers
2017. Acceptance of televideo technology by adults aging with a mobility impairment for health and wellness interventions. Journal of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies Engineering 4
Herring, Susan C., Susan R. Fussell, Annica Kristoffersson, Bilge Mutlu, Carman Neustaedter & Katherine Tsui
2016. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ► pp. 1038 ff.
Kaptelinin, Victor
2016. Supporting Referential Gestures in Mobile Remote Presence: A Preliminary Exploration. In Inclusive Smart Cities and Digital Health [Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 9677], ► pp. 262 ff.
Orlandini, Andrea, Annica Kristoffersson, Lena Almquist, Patrik Björkman, Amedeo Cesta, Gabriella Cortellessa, Cipriano Galindo, Javier Gonzalez-Jimenez, Kalle Gustafsson, Andrey Kiselev, Amy Loutfi, Francisco Melendez, Malin Nilsson, Lasse Odens Hedman, Eleni Odontidou, Jose-Raul Ruiz-Sarmiento, Mårten Scherlund, Lorenza Tiberio, Stephen von Rump & Silvia Coradeschi
2016. ExCITE Project: A Review of Forty-Two Months of Robotic Telepresence Technology Evolution. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 25:3 ► pp. 204 ff.
Kristoffersson, Annica
2014. Using Presence, Spatial Formations and Sociometry to Measure Interaction Quality in Mobile Robotic Telepresence Systems. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 28:1 ► pp. 49 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.