Conveying Directional Gaze Cues to Support Remote Participation in Hybrid Meetings

  • Betsy van Dijk
  • Job Zwiers
  • Rieks op den Akker
  • Olga Kulyk
  • Hendri Hondorp
  • Dennis Hofs
  • Anton Nijholt

Abstract

We study videoconferencing for meetings with some co-located participants and one remote participant. A standard Skype-like interface for the remote participant is compared to a more immersive 3D interface that conveys gaze directions in a natural way. Experimental results show the 3D interface is promising: all significant differences are in favor of 3D and according to the participants the 3D interface clearly supports selective gaze and selective listening. We found some significant differences in perceived quality of cooperation and organization, and on the opinions about other group members. No significant differences were found for perceived social presence of the remote participants, but we did measure differences in social presence for co-located participants. Measured gaze frequency and duration nor perceived turn-taking behavior did differ significantly.

Keywords

Hybrid meetings videoconferencing selective gaze selective listening social presence group process turn-taking remote participation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    op den Akker, H.J.A., Hofs, D.H.W., Hondorp, G.H.W., op den Akker, H., Zwiers, J., Nijholt, A.: Supporting Engagement and Floor Control in Hybrid Meetings. In: Esposito, A., Vích, R. (eds.) Cross-Modal Analysis of Speech, Gestures, Gaze and Facial Expressions. LNCS, vol. 5641, pp. 276–290. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., Johnson, J.: A Study of Partially Distributed Work Groups: The Impact of Media, Location, and Time on Perceptions and Performance. Small Group Research 30(4), 453–490 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiMicco, J., Pandolfo, A., Bender, W.: Influencing Group Participation with a Shared Display. In: Proc. CSCW 2004, pp. 614–623. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Field, A.: Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks (2009)MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harms, C., Biocca, F.: Internal Consistency and Reliability of the Networked Minds Social Presence Measure. In: Alcaniz, M., Rey, B. (eds.) Seventh Annual International Workshop: Presence 2004, pp. 246–251. Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauber, J., Regenbrecht, H., Billinghurst, M., Cockburn, A.: Spatiality in videoconferencing: trade-offs between efficiency and social presence. In: Proc. CSCW 2006, pp. 413–422. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kendon, A.: Some Functions of Gaze-Direction in Social Interaction. Acta Psychologica 26, 22–63 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kulyk, O., Wang, C., Terken, J.: Real-Time Feedback Based on Nonverbal Behaviour to Enhance Social Dynamics in Small Group Meetings. In: Renals, S., Bengio, S. (eds.) MLMI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3869, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nijholt, A., Rienks, R.J., Zwiers, J., Reidsma, D.: Online and Off-line Visualization of Meeting Information and Meeting Support. The Visual Computer 22(12), 965–976 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olaniran, B.A.: A Model of Group Satisfaction in Computer Mediated Communication and Face-to-Face Meetings. Behaviour & Information Technology 15(1), 24–36 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Ramamurthy, K.: User Satisfaction with System, Decision Process, and Outcome in GDSS Based Meeting: An Experimental Investigation. In: Proc. of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Post, W., Elling, E., Cremers, A., Kraaij, W.: Experimental Comparison of Multimodal Meeting Browsers. In: Smith, M.J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) HCII 2007. LNCS, vol. 4558, pp. 118–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sellen, A.J.: Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology. Human–Computer Interaction 10, 401–444 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sellen, A., Buxton, B., Arnott, J.: Using spatial cues to improve videoconferencing. In: Proc. CHI 1992, pp. 651–652. ACM Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stasser, G., Stewart, D.: Discovery of Hidden Profiles by Decision-Making Groups: Solving a Problem Versus Making a Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3), 426–434 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vertegaal, R.: The GAZE Groupware System: Mediating Joint Attention in Multiparty Communication and Collaboration. In: Proc. CHI 1999, pp. 294–301. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vinciarelli, A., Pantic, M., Bourlard, H.: Social Signal Processing: Survey of an Emerging Domain. Image and Vision Computing 27(12), 1743–1759 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whittaker, S.: Rethinking Video as a Technology for Interpersonal Communications: Theory and Design Implications. Intl. J. of Man-Machine Studies 42, 50–529 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whittaker, S.: Theories and Methods in Mediated Communication. In: Handbook of Discourse Processes, Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 243–286 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yankelovich, N., Simpson, N., Kaplan, J., Provino, J.: Porta-Person: Telepresence for the Connected Conference Room. In: Proc. CHI 2007, pp. 2789–2794. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betsy van Dijk
    • 1
  • Job Zwiers
    • 1
  • Rieks op den Akker
    • 1
  • Olga Kulyk
    • 1
  • Hendri Hondorp
    • 1
  • Dennis Hofs
    • 1
  • Anton Nijholt
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations