Telepresence and the Role of the Senses

Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 134)


The telepresence experience can be evoked in a number of ways. A well-known example is a player of videogames who reports about a telepresence experience, a subjective experience of being in one place or environment, even when physically situated in another place. In this paper we set the phenomenon of telepresence into a theoretical framework. As people react subjectively to stimuli from telepresence, empirical studies can give more evidence about the phenomenon. Thus, our contribution is to bridge the theoretical with the empirical. We discuss theories of perception with an emphasis on Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Gibson, the role of the senses and the Spinozian belief procedure. The aim is to contribute to our understanding of this phenomenon. A telepresence-study that included the affordance concept is used to empirically study how players report sense-reactions to virtual sightseeing in two cities. We investigate and explore the interplay of the philosophical and the empirical. The findings indicate that it is not only the visual sense that plays a role in this experience, but all senses.


Affordance Telepresence Perceptual experience Virtual environments Subjective experience 


  1. Baumgartner, T., L. Valko, M. Esslen, and L. Jäncke. 2006. Neural correlate of spatial presence in an arousing and noninteractive virtual reality: An EEG and psychophysiology study. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 9 (1): 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazin, A. 1967. What Is Cinema? Trans. H. Gray. Los Angeles: University of California Press. (Original work published 1951).Google Scholar
  3. Biocca, F. 1997. The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3(2). Available at:
  4. ———. 2001. Inserting the presence of mind into a philosophy of presence: A response to Sheridan and Mantovani and Riva. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10 (5): 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burri, R.V., C. Schubert, and J. Strübing. 2011. The five senses of science. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies 7 (1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  6. Clemente, M., A.J. Rodríguez, B. Rey, and M. Alcañiz. 2013. Measuring presence during the navigation in a virtual environment using EEG. In Annual review of cybertherapy and telemedicine 2013: Positive technology and health engagement for healthy living and active ageing, ed. B.K. Wiederhold and G. Riva, vol. 191, 136–140. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dinh, H.Q., N. Walker, L.F. Hodges, C. Song, and A. Kobayashi. 1999. Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. In Proceedings of the IEEE virtual reality conference, March 13–17, Houston, TX, 222–228. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  8. Dretske, F. 2003. Experience as representations. Philosophical Issues, Philosophy of Mind 13: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flach, J.M., and J.G. Holden. 1998. The reality of experience. Presence, Teleoperators, and Virtual Environments 7: 90–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. 2005. The philosophy of presence: From epistemic failure to successful observation. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 14 (6): 656–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fulkerson, M. 2014. Rethinking the senses and their interactions: The case for sensory pluralism. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerard, H.B. 1997. Psychic reality and unconscious belief: A reconsideration. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 78: 327–334.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson, J.J. 1966. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, D.T. 1991. How mental systems believe. American Psychologist 46 (2): 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heidegger, M. 1954. The question concerning technology, and other essays, 1977. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  16. Heinemann, F.H. 1941. The analysis of ‘Experience’. The Philosophical Review 50 (6): 561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Held, R.M., and N.I. Durlach. 1992. Telepresence. Presence 1 (1): 109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoffman, H.G., T. Richards, B. Coda, A. Richards, and S.R. Sharar. 2003. The illusion of presence in immersive virtual reality during an fMRI brain scan. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 6 (2): 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ihde, D. 1983. Existential technics. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2002. Bodies in technology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D. 2002. Maps of bounded rationality (No. 2002–4). Nobel Prize Committee.Google Scholar
  22. Leister, W., H. Müller, and A. Stößer. 1991. Fotorealistische Computeranimation. Springer. ISBN 3-540-53234-X, in German.Google Scholar
  23. Lessiter, J., J. Freeman, E. Keogh, and J. Davidoff. 2001. A cross-media presence questionnaire: The ITC-sense of presence inventory. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10: 282–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Logue, H. 2009. Perceptual experience: relations and representations. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. Lombard, M., and T.B. Ditton 1997. At the heart of it all: The concept of presence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lombard, M., T.B. Ditton, D. Crane, B. Davis, G. Gil-Egui, and K. Horvath. 2000. Measuring presence: A literature-based approach to the development of a standardized paper-and-pencil instrument. In Proceedings of the third international workshop on presence, ed. W. IJsselsteijn, J. Freeman, and H. de Ridder.Google Scholar
  27. Lombard, M., T. B. Ditton, and L. Weinstein. 2011. Measuring telepresence: The validity of the Temple Presence Inventory (TPI) in a gaming context. Fourteenth International Workshop on Presence (ISPR 2011), Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  28. Lombard, M., and Weinstein, L. 2012. What are telepresence experiences like in the real world? A qualitative survey. In Proceedings of the 15th international workshop on presence (ISPR’14). Accessed 16 Oct 2018.
  29. Low, D. 2009. The body of Merleau – Ponty’s work as a developing whole. International Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2): 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacDougall, D. 1997. The visual in anthropology. In Rethinking visual anthropology, ed. M. Banks and H. Morphy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Macpherson, F. 2011. Individuating the senses. In The senses, 3–43. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Martin, M.G.F. 2004. The limits of self-awareness. Philosophical Studies 120 (1–3): 37–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathews, E. 2002. The philosophy of Merleau-Ponty. Montreal: McGill-Queens’s University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Matthews, E. 2002. The philosophy of Merleau-Ponty. Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  36. Merchant, S. 2011. The body and the senses: Visual methods, videography and the submarine sensorium. Body & Society 17 (1): 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. C. Smith. New York: Routledge (Original work published in 1945).Google Scholar
  38. ———. (1968). The Visible and the Invisible. Trans. A. Lingis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Mingers, J. 2001. Embodying information systems: The contribution of phenomenology. Information and Organization 11: 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Morie, J.F. 2007. Meaning and emplacement in expressive immersive virtual environments. Doctoral dissertation, University of East London.Google Scholar
  41. Nacke, L.E. 2013. An introduction to physiological player metrics for evaluating games. In Game analytics, 585–619. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nanay, B. 2010. Action-oriented perception. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (3): 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nudds, M. 2004. The significance of the senses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1): 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nunez, D. 2007. A capacity limited, cognitive constructionist model of virtual presence. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa.Google Scholar
  45. O’Regan, K.J., and A. Noë. 2001. A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 939–973 discussion 973-1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ozok, A.A., and A. Komlodi. 2009. Better in 3D? An empirical investigation of user satisfaction and preferences concerning two-dimensional and three-dimensional product representations in business-to-consumer e-commerce. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 25 (4): 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Putnam, H. 1994. Sense, nonsense and the senses: An inquiry into the powers of the human mind. The Journal of Philosophy 91 (9): 445–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Relph, E. 1976. Place and placelessnes. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 2007. Spirit of place and sense of place in virtual realities. Techne. Research in Philosophy and Technology. Special Issue: Real and Virtual Places 10 (3): 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richter, T., S. Schroeder, and B. Wöhrmann. 2009. You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96 (3): 538–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robinson, M. 2012. Introducing Quantic Dream’s Kara. In, March 7, 2012. Available at:
  52. Sadowski, W. 1999. Special report: Utilization of olfactory stimulation in virtual environments. VR News 8 (4): 18–21.Google Scholar
  53. Schilder, P. 1935. The image and appearance of the human body. London/New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Schubert, T. 2002. Five theses on the book problem: Presence in books, film, and VR. In 5th annual international workshop presence 2002, ed. F. Gouveia, 53–58. Porto: Universidare Fernando Pessoa.Google Scholar
  55. Schubert, T., F. Friedmann, and H. Regenbrecht. 2001. The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10: 266–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz, L. 2006. Fantasy, realism, and the other in recent video games. Space and Culture 9 (3): 313–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sheridan, T.B. 1992. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 1 (1): 120–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slater, M. 1999. Measuring presence: A response to the Witmer and Singer Presence Questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 8 (5): 560–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slater, M. 2009. Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. B, 364: 3549–3557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slater, M., M. Usoh, and A. Steed. 1994. Depth of presence in virtual environments. Presence 3 (2): 130–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Slater, M., B. Lotto, M.M. Arnold, and M.V. Sanchez-Vives. 2009. How we experience immersive virtual environments: The concept of presence and its measurement. Anuario de Psicología 40: 193–210.Google Scholar
  62. Spinoza, B. 1982. The Ethics and Selected Letters. Ed. S. Feldman, and Trans. S. Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett. (Original work published 1677). Translated from the Latin by R.H.M. Elwes (1883), MTSU philosophy WebWorks Hypertext Edition 1997.Google Scholar
  63. Stanovich, K.E. 1999. Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stanovich, K.E., and R.F. West. 2000. Advancing the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (05): 701–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steuer, J. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication 42 (4): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Street, C.N., and D.C. Richardson. 2015. Descartes versus Spinoza: Truth, uncertainty, and bias. Social Cognition 33: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tripathi, A.K. 2005. Computers and the embodied nature of communication: Merleau-Ponty’s new ontology of embodiment. ACM Ubiquity 6 (44): 1–17.Google Scholar
  68. Turing, A.M. 1950, October. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind 54 (236): 433–460.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Velmans, M. 2000. Understanding consciousness. London/Philadelphia: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. von Helmholtz, H. 1866. Concerning the perceptions in general. In Treatise on physiological optics, vol. III, 3rd ed. Trans. J.P.C. Southall 1925 Opt. Soc. Am. Section 26, New York: Dover, 1962.Google Scholar
  71. Vorderer, P., W. Wirth, F. R. Gouveia, F. Biocca, T. Saari, et al. 2004. MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MECSPQ). Report to the European Community, project presence: MEC (IST-2001-31661).Google Scholar
  72. Waterworth, J.A., E.L. Waterworth, G. Riva, and F. Mantovani. 2015. Presence: Form, content and consciousness. In Immersed in media: Telepresence theory, Measurement & Technology, ed. M. Lombard, J. Freeman, W. IJsselsteijn, and R.J. Schaevitz, 35–58. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Witmer, B.G., and M.J. Singer. 1998. Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7: 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yoon, S., J. Laffey, and H. Oh. 2008. Understanding usability and user experience of web-based 3D graphics technology. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 24 (3): 288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zahorik, P., and R.L. Jenison. 1998. Presence as being-in-the-world. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 7: 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norsk RegnesentralOsloNorway
  2. 2.Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations