Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 5573–5606 | Cite as

Co-present and remote audience experiences: intensity and cohesion

  • Erik Geelhoed
  • Kuldip Singh-Barmi
  • Ian Biscoe
  • Pablo Cesar
  • Jack Jansen
  • Chen Wang
  • Rene Kaiser


This article presents the results of modelling audience response to new types of networked theatre plays. As the main contribution of the work we introduce two types of metrics: intensity, relating to how intensively co-present and remote aspects of a performance are rated, and cohesion, relating to how a performance as a whole, the combination of co-present and remote aspects, affects an audience. In particular, we model audience response based on two in the wild evaluations, staged by a low budget theatre company, a streamed and a distributed performance. The streamed performance is similar to NT Live, where a theatre play is delivered to other theatres with an audience. The distributed performance, on the other hand, connects actors in two different theatres (with audiences) creating one single play. The streamed performance was experienced as less intense as well as less cohesive by the remote audience, whilst the distributed performance integrated co-present and remote aspects tightly. Remote aspects of the distributed performance were still experienced as less intense, but the performance as a whole was highly cohesive. Apart from the identification of these two new metrics (intensity and cohesion), based on our experiences we argue that an innovative way of bundling relevant emerging technologies is needed to give a voice to the, as yet silent, remote audience.


Distributed performances Streaming performances Evaluation methods Media experiences Audience evaluation Audience feedback Telepresence 



The research leading to these results has received funding from several sources: the European Community's Seventh Framework Program under grant agreement no. ICT-2011-287760 (Vconect), British Telecom, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). We want to thank all at Miracle Theatre, Dogbite Studios, the Falmouth Maritime Museum, the JointEffort video crew, and all partners in these collaborative research endeavours.


  1. 1.
    Anderson NH (1970) Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychol Rev 77(3):153–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auslander P (1999) Liveness: performance in a mediatized culture. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakhshi, H., J. Mateos-Garcia and D. Throsby. (2010) Beyond Live. (last accessed 04/2016)
  4. 4.
    Barker M, Brooks K (1998) Knowing audiences: Judge Dredd - Its friends, fans and foes, University of Luton PressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barker M (2013) Live to your local cinema: the remarkable rise of livecasting. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    BEAMING - Being in Augmented Multi – Modal Naturally – Networked Gatherings, EU FP7 project, (last accessed 04/2016)
  7. 7.
    Berry M, Geelhoed E, Scott B, Towell P, Ukleja A (2015) Miracle theatre: live & digital research and development report London: Nesta, (last accessed 04/2016)
  8. 8.
    Birringer J (2008) Performance, technology & science. PAJ Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boerner S, Jobst J, Wiemann M (2010) Exploring the theatrical experience: results from an empirical investigation. Psychol Aesthet 4:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boerner S, Jobst J (2013) Enjoying theater: the role of visitor’s response to the performance. Psychol Aesthet, Creat Arts 7:391–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown AS, Novak JL (2007). Assessing the intrinsic impacts of a live performance. WolfBrownGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cavendish D (2010) Sir Nicholas Hytner on NT Live Telegraph On-line 24th May 2010 (last accessed 04/2016)
  13. 13.
    Causey M (1999) Test of the Double: The Uncanny Performer in the Space of Technology. Theatre Journal, Vol. 51, no 4. Theatre and Technology, p 383–394. John Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cerrato-Pargman T, Rossitto C, Barkhuus L (2014) Understanding audience participation in an interactive theater performance. Proceedings of NordCHI’14, Helsinki, Finland. 608–617Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chartrand TL, Bargh JA (1999) The chameleon effect: the perception-behavior link and social interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 76(6):893–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark HH, Brennan S (1991) Grounding in communication. In: Resnick LB, Levine J, Teasley SD (eds) Perspectives on socially shared cognition. APA Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ControlBooth, Thread “Pepper’s Ghost / Projection surface ?”, (last accessed 04/2016)
  18. 18.
    Corness G, Carlson K, Schiphorst T (2011) Audience empathy: a phenomenological method for mediated performance. Proceedings Creativity and Cognition, 127–136. ACM, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cremona C (2011) Skype and videoperformance: relational screens. 17th International Symposium on Electronic Art, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    CultureHub, center for art and technology, New York. (last accessed 04/2016)
  21. 21.
    Dixon S (2007) Digital performance, a history of new media in theatre, dance, performance art, and installation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dog Bite Film Crew, (last accessed 04/2016)
  23. 23.
    Fadiga L, Craighero L, Buccino G, Rizzolatti G (2002) Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: a TMS study. Eur J Neurosci 15:399–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gazzola V, Aziz-Zadeh L, Keysers C (2006) Empathy and the somatotopic auditory mirror system in humans. Curr Biol 16(18):1824–1829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geelhoed E, Williams D, Albright S, Hubley T (2007) User-centred approach to achieving the halo experience, paper presented at eChallenges e-2007 Conference The Hague 24–26 October 2007.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Geelhoed E, Parker A, Williams DJ, Groen M (2009) Effects of latency on telepresence. HP labs technical report: HPL-2009-120 (last accessed 04/2016)
  27. 27.
    Geelhoed E, Stenton P, Singh-Barmi K, Biscoe I (2014) Necessidades dos usuários de espaços de performances imersivas mediatizadas, (User Requirements in Immersive Mediated Performance). Revista Mapa, Vol. 1, No 1, 2014, Brazil. (last accessed 04/2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jackson PL, Brunet E, Meltzoff AN, Decety J (2006) Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia 44(2006):752–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jabbi M, Swart M, Keysers C (2007) Empathy for positive and negative emotions in the gustatory cortex. NeuroImage 34:1744–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joint Effort Studios, (last accessed 04/2016)
  31. 31.
    Kaiser R, Weiss W (2014) Media Production, Delivery and Interaction for Platform Independent Systems: Format-Agnostic Media, chapter Virtual Director, pp. 209–259. WileyGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaiser R, Ursu MF, Falelakis M, Horti A (2015) Enabling distributed theatre performances through multi-camera telepresence – Capturing system behaviour in a Script-Based Approach, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Immersive Media Experiences (ImmersiveME ‘15), pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaptein M, Nass C, Markopoulos P (2010) Powerful and consistent analysis of Likert-type rating scales. Proceedings of CHI 2010, Atlanta, USA: 2391–2394Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kline P (1986) A Handbook of Test Construction. Introduction to Psychometric Design. Methuen & Co, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kozel S (2007) Closer, performance, technologies, phenomenology. The MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    LABoral Centro de Arte y Creación Industrial, (last accessed 04/2016)
  37. 37.
    Latulipe C, Carolina C, Carroll EA, Lottridge D (2011) Love, hate, arousal and engagement: exploring audience responses to performing arts. Proceedings of CHI 2011, Vancouver, Canada: 1845–1854Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leslie KR, Johnson-Frey SH, Grafton ST (2004) Functional imaging of face and hand imitation: towards a motor theory of empathy. NeuroImage 21:601–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Li J, Martens JB, van Wijk JJ (2010) A model of symbol size discrimination in scatterplots. Proceedings of CHI 2010, Atlanta, USA 2553–2562Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lin Y-W, Williams AE (2014) Projecting the voice: observations of audience behaviours in ICT-mediated contemporary opera. New Rev Hypermedia Multimedia 20(3):207–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. J Soc Psychol 5:228–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    McFarland DH (2001) Respiratory markers of conversational interaction. J Speech, Lang Hear Res 44:128–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Miracle Theatre, (last accessed 04/2016)
  44. 44.
    Miracle Theatre, Vconect’s The Distributed Tempest approach: (last accessed 04/2016)
  45. 45.
    Miracle Theatre, Interview about Vconect’s The Distributed Tempest: (last accessed 04/2016)
  46. 46.
    Musion Das Hologram Ltd., (last accessed 04/2016)
  47. 47.
    Musion Eyeliner, Gorillaz at MTV Europe Awards 2005, (last accessed 04/2016)
  48. 48.
    National Theatre Live, (last accessed 04/2016)
  49. 49.
    Naugle L (2002) Distributed choreography, a video-conferencing environment. J Perform Art 24(2):56–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Panoply, Dimanche Rouge (2011) (last accessed 04/2016)
  51. 51.
    Paul Sermon: Telematic Dreaming – Statement, (last accessed 04/2016)
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Poéticas Tencológicas: Corpoaudiovisual, (last accessed 04/2016)
  54. 54.
    Porta (Giambattista della): Magia Naturalis, (revision of 21 March, 2016)
  55. 55.
    Qlab, (last accessed 04/2016)
  56. 56.
    Rizzolatti G, Arbib MA (1998) Language within our grasp. Trends Neurosci 21(5):188–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rizzolatti G, Craighero L (2004) The mirror-neuron system. Annu Rev Neurosci 27:169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Santana I (2006) Dança na Cultura Digital. Salvador:EDFBA. 204pag. 2006. ISBN 85-232-0415-6. Salvador : Editora da UFBA, 2006, v.1. p.204Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sas C, O’Hare GM (2003) Presence equation: an investigation into cognitive factors underlying presence. Presence 12(5):523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schutt B (2011) Case study: national theatre live Aug 24th 2011Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sermon P (1992) Telematic dreaming: (last accessed 04/2016)
  62. 62.
    Shrader A (2015) A comparison of audience response to live and recorded theatre performances, research honours degree thesis, Department of Psychology Marietta College, Marietta, OH, April 8, 2015Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shockley K, Santana MV, Fowler CA (2003) Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 29(2):326–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sonic Foundry Mediasite, (last accessed 04/2016)
  65. 65.
    Stenslie S (2003) Erotogod, (last accessed 04/2016)
  66. 66.
    Stenton P, Geelhoed E, Pollard S, Porter G, Bellaar-Spruijt V (2012) Extending the theatre experience: the potential for wearable and on-stage cameras. Ubiquity: Journal of Pervasive Media, Vol 1, pp 33–64, Intellect LtdGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Stinehelfer B (2012) Skype Duet, (last accessed 04/2016)
  68. 68.
    Stone H, Sidel J, Oliver S, Woolsey A, Singleton RC (1974) Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technol 1974:24–34Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Vladica V, Davis CH (2013) Value propositions of opera and theater live in cinema. (last accessed 04/2016)
  70. 70.
    Wang C, Geelhoed E, Stenton P, Cesar P (2014) Sensing a live audience. Proceedings of CHI 2014, Toronto, Canada: 1909–1912Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wang C, Zhu X, Geelhoed E, Biscoe I, Röggla T, Cesar P (2016) How are we connected? Measuring Audience Galvanic Skin Response of Connected Performances, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Physiological Computing Systems, (PhyCS 2016), July 27 – July 28, 2016, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Williams D, Kegel I, Ursu MF, Cesar P, Jansen J, Geelhoed E (2015) Experiments with Distributed Theatre, IEEE, MultiMedia, July-September 2015, Vol. 22, No. 3. Published by the IEEE Computer Society: Social Multimedia and Storytelling. page 4–9Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Williams D, Kegel K, Ursu MF, Cesar P, Jansen J, Geelhoed E, Horti A, Frantzis M, Scott B (2015) A Distributed Theatre Experiment with Shakespeare, the ACM, MM’15 conference October 26-30, 2015, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wilson M, Wilson TP (2005) An oscillator model of the timing of turn-taking. Psychon Bull Rev 12(6):957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Young FW, Hamer RM (1987) Multidimensional scaling: history, theory, and applications. Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Falmouth UniversityFalmouthUK
  2. 2.Centrum Wiskunde & InformaticaAmsterdamNetherlands
  3. 3.Institute for Information and Communication Technologies, JOANNEUM RESEARCHGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations