Communicating Through A Telepresence Robot

Yang, Lillian; Neustaedter, Carman; Schiphorst, Thecla

doi:10.1145/3027063.3053240

Cited by 41 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pepper has both an autonomous mode, and a telepresence mode, where someone can take control over its movements. Telepresence robots in the work environment [39,64] and conferences [7,26,48] (as well as other task-related [34,56], or even domestic environments [70]) where people cannot physically attend are existing examples of this behaviour. Improved social presence via telepresence technologies has already been explored, even with simple telepresence devices [60].…”

Section: Robots As Social Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Value of Social Robots through the Eyes of Expert Users

Dereshev

Kirk

Matsumura

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socially-enabled digital technologies have attracted academic interest for decades, with recent commercial examples of Siri and Alexa, capturing public attention. However, despite ubiquitous visions of a robotic future, very few fully-fledged social robots are currently available to consumers. To improve their designs, studies of their long-term use are particularly valuable, but are currently unavailable. To address this gap, we report on interviews with four long-term users of Pepper-a social robot introduced in 2014. Our thematic analysis elicited insights across three kinds of value Pepper brought to its users: utilitarian functionality; the community that formed around Pepper; and a personal value of affection. We focus on two contributions those values bring to social robot design: social robots as social proxies, alleviating disabilities or acting akin to social media profiles; and robot nurturing as a design construct, going beyond purely utilitarian or hedonistic perspectives on robots.

show abstract

Section: Robots As Social Proxiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-Term Value of Social Robots through the Eyes of Expert Users

Dereshev

Kirk

Matsumura

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The areas of research and practice, in which the potential of MRP was explored especially actively, include healthcare, especially telemedicine and elderly care [2,17,18,21], office work [20,37] and museum visits [11,31]. In recent years the research has further expanded to a diversity of other areas, such as conference attendance [22,23,29], longdistance relationships [39,40], joint shopping activities [38]), and geocaching [14].…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…HCI research also points to a number of issues with existing robotic telepresence technologies, including problems related to safety, privacy, pilots' cognitive load, and social interaction cues available to both pilots and local people (e.g., [35,40]). Of special relevance to the analysis in this paper are two issues, identified in HCI research: (a) a lack of action capabilities of typical MRP systems and (b) asymmetric relations between pilots and local people.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The limited ability of typical robotic telepresence systems to physically interact with surrounding objects is often experienced by pilots as a challenge. Studies provide numerous examples of remote co-workers missing meetings because they could not open a door [20], remote conference participants unable to attend a session because they could not use the elevator [33], and remote partners in long-distance relationships feeling bad about not being more helpful with household chores [40]. In general, pilots depend on the help of local people when performing many physical actions.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This paper addresses one of them, namely, a severely limited ability of most MRP systems to perform physical object manipulation. Primarily intended as communications devices, MRP systems are usually powerless when a physical action, however basic, is required, so pilots have to ask a local person for help when they need to open a door or turn on the lights (e.g., [3,35,39,40]). One way to deal with this challenge is to equip MRP systems with manipulator arms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance, Power, and Place: User Experience of Contactless Object Manipulation in Robotic Telepresence

Kaptelinin

Björnfot

Danielsson

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most robotic telepresence systems are severely limited in their ability to physically interact with surrounding objects. The solution we propose, "double remote control", or DRC, is to make it possible for the user controlling the telepresence robot ("the pilot"), to also remotely control objects in the robot's physical environment. This paper reports a user experience study, comparing a Wizard of Oz-style prototype of a DRC-enabled environment with a control condition, in which DRC was not enabled. The participants, who acted as either remote pilots (N P =16) or local people in the robot's proximity (N LP =16), were asked to carry out joint activities in each of these conditions. It was found that DRC had a generally positive effect on how participants, and especially pilots, performed their tasks, but the impact of DRC on the social context of interaction was mixed. CCS CONCEPTS • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI); HCI design and evaluation methods; User studies.

show abstract