KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 49–52 | Cite as

Using Presence, Spatial Formations and Sociometry to Measure Interaction Quality in Mobile Robotic Telepresence Systems

Doctoral and Postdoctoral Dissertations


The use of video mediated communication technologies for interacting is increasing. An extension of these is mobile robotic telepresence (MRP) systems, video conferencing systems mounted on teleoperated mobile robots. The nature of the interaction via an MRP system is more complex than face-to-face interaction and involves not only social communication but also mobility. This research focuses on the use of MRP systems in domestic settings in elder care and contributes to the understanding of how interaction is affected by MRP system embodiment.


Mobile robotic telepresence systems MRP systems Quality of interaction Presence Spatial formations Sociometry Ageing in place 



The work in this thesis was performed within the context of the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme project ExCITE-AAL-2009-2-125, Enabling SoCial Interaction Through Embodiment [2].


  1. 1.
    Biocca F, Harms C (2002) Networked minds social presence inventory (scales only version 1.2). Accessed 03 Oct 2013
  2. 2.
    Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Kristoffersson A, von Rump S, Cesta A, Cortellessa G, Gonzalez J (2011) Towards a methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotic telepresence for elderly. In: Proceedings of the HRI 2011 workshop social robotic telepresence, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giraff (2013) Accessed 03 Oct 2013
  4. 4.
    Kendon A (1990) Conducting interaction: patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kristoffersson A (2013) Measuring the quality of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence systems using presence, spatial formations and sociometry. Ph.D. thesis, Örebro university, Sweden. Available online:
  6. 6.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A (2013) A review of mobile robotic telepresence. Adv Hum Comput Interact 1–17Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Eklundh KS (2013) Assessment of interaction quality in mobile robotic telepresence: an elderly perspective. Interact Stud (In press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Loutfi A, Severinson-Eklund K (2011) An exploratory study of health professionals’ attitudes about telepresence technology. J Technol Hum Serv 29(4):263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kristoffersson A, Coradeschi S, Severinson Eklundh K, Loutfi A (2013) Towards measuring quality of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence using sociometric badges. Paladyn. J Behav Robot 4(1):34–48Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kristoffersson A, Eklundh KS, Loutfi A (2013) Measuring the quality of interaction in mobile robotic telepresence a pilot’s perspective. Int J Soc Robot 5:89–101. doi: 10.1007/s12369-012-0166-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lawton MP (1985) The elderly in context. Perspectives from environmental psychology and gerontology. Environ Behav 17:501–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lombard M, Ditton T (2004) A literature-based presence measurement instrument the temple presence inventory (TPI) (BETA). In: PRESENCE 2004: the 7th annual international workshop on presenceGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moreno JL (1953) Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama, rev. edn. Beacon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Woods SN, Walters ML, Koay KL, Dautenhahn K (2006) Methodological Issues in HRI: a comparison of live and video-based methods in robot to human approach direction trials. In: Proceedings of the 15th IEEE international symposium on robot & human interactive communication (Ro-Man’06), pp 51–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Applied Autonomous Sensor SystemsÖrebro universityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations