review article a review of mobile robotic telepresence

Hindawi Publishing CorporationAdvances in Human-Computer InteractionVolume 2013 Article ID 902316 17 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552013902316

Review ArticleA Review of Mobile Robotic Telepresence

Annica Kristoffersson Silvia Coradeschi and Amy Loutfi

Center of Applied Autonomous Sensor Systems Orebro University Fakultetsgatan 1 70182 Orebro Sweden

Correspondence should be addressed to Annica Kristoffersson annicakristofferssonoruse

Received 30 August 2012 Revised 29 December 2012 Accepted 5 February 2013

Academic Editor Eva Cerezo

Copyright copy 2013 Annica Kristoffersson et al This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properlycited

Mobile robotic telepresence (MRP) systems incorporate video conferencing equipment onto mobile robot devices which can besteered from remote locations These systems which are primarily used in the context of promoting social interaction betweenpeople are becoming increasingly popular within certain application domains such as health care environments independentliving for the elderly and office environments In this paper an overview of the various systems application areas and challengesfound in the literature concerning mobile robotic telepresence is provided The survey also proposes a set terminology for thefield as there is currently a lack of standard terms for the different concepts related to MRP systems Further this paper providesan outlook on the various research directions for developing and enhancing mobile robotic telepresence systems per se as well asevaluating the interaction in laboratory and field settings Finally the survey outlines a number of design implications for the futureof mobile robotic telepresence systems for social interaction

1 Introduction

Telepresence [1] is about the sense of being in another envi-ronment In particular robotic telepresence offers the meansto connect to a remote location via traditional telepresencewith the added value ofmoving and actuating in that locationA facet of robotic telepresence is social robotic telepresencewhere the primary aim of the system is to foster a socialinteraction between individuals

In this paper we provide the first literature review of asubset of social robotic telepresence systems whose focus ison mobility Such systems concentrate primarily on enablingsocial interaction via a video conferencing system withthe added functionalities of movingsteering the system tovarious locations Adopted from [2 3] we refer to thissubset of social robotic telepresence devices asmobile robotictelepresence (MRP) systems Typical MRP systems are char-acterized by an LCD screen aweb camera amicrophone andspeakers allowing communication between two parties Theunits can be moved around by a user who is not situated atthe robot site

Today the field of mobile robotic telepresence is in rapidexpansion with an increasing amount of commercial systemsavailable and research efforts in the field [4ndash6]The published

research spans from issues on navigation and immersionto evaluations in office and health care environments Sofar however there is a lack of a comprehensive review ofMRP systems in the literature and the primary aim of thiswork is to provide an overview of the systems availabletheir intended use and the core research directions whichhave appeared in the literature This paper also aims tosummarize the various works by providing a reflection of thelessons learned from these various research initiatives In theliterature a variety of terms have been used to refer to thesystem and the users This paper therefore also proposes toadopt a specific terminology using the following definitions

Mobile robotic telepresence (MRP) systems are char-acterized by a video conferencing system mountedon a mobile robotic base The system allows a pilotuser to move around in the robotrsquos environment Theprimary aim of MRP systems is to provide socialinteraction between humans The system consists ofboth the physical robot (sensors and actuators) andthe interface used to pilot the robotA Pilot user is a person who remotely connects tothe robot via a computer interface The pilot who isembodied in theMRP system canmove around in the

2 Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

environment where the robot is located and interactwith other personsA Local user is the user that is being situated at thesame physical location as the robot Local users arefree to move around while interacting with the pilotuser who is visiting them via the robotLocal environment is the environment in which therobot and the local user are situated

The paper is organized as follows Section 2 outlines a listof MRP systems which are later referred to in the paper InSection 2 focus is placed solely on the MRP systemsrsquo designand technical specifications Section 3 contextualizes thesesystems by dividing them into a number of application areaswhere focus is placed on specific design choices that aredirected towards the application needs Section 4 providesan overview of the various methods used when evaluatingMRP systems including both technical evaluations and userfeedback Section 5 outlines a number of design implicationsto consider for developers of future MRP systems based onthe results of the evaluations and experiences from usingsystems in the different application areas Finally Section 6provides a future outlook of the field of MRP systems

2 MRP Systems Design

MRP systems vary in design and functionality often depend-ing directly on their intended use and application In thissection we briefly describe the hardware and software spec-ification of the most common MRP systems found in theliterature (see Table 1) Although some of the manufacturersof the robots provide public price tags the field is undergoingrapid expansion The price tags are therefore expected tochange over time

Among the first of the MRP systems was PRoP [7 8]see Figure 1(a)The basic construction of PRoP consisted of amobile robotic base an LCD screen camera microphone arobot handarm hardware with a 2 DOF pointer and a laserpointer attached to its tip for simple gesturing As describedin [8] pilots have the ability to move the robot as well aszoom pan and tilt the head For navigation a keyboard anda joystick are needed The goal with PRoP was to allow thepilot to fully immerse in real remote spaces and a number ofservices such as a visual scrapbook logging interactions andmovements were envisioned [8]

Since ProP many similar types of MRP systems haveemerged varying only slightly in functionality and designGiraff [9] see Figure 1(b) is a human-height MRP systemIt comes with a 14110158401015840 tiltable standing screen mounted on anonadjustable pole attached to a mobile base The web camprovides the pilot who connects from a PC with a wide-angle view of the local environment The construction anddesign of Giraff is highly motivated by its intended use ina home environment Thus the Giraff robot with its heavybase can clear thresholds and obstacles with minimum riskof tipping Driving the robot can be done by using a mouseor touchpad The approximate tentative trajectory is drawnas a red line on a video panel When the left mouse button is

pressed and held the line transitions to green and the robotstarts moving The robotrsquos direction and speed are controlledby the orientation and length of the line respectively Therobotrsquos head tilt can be adjusted at any point during drivingMotivated again by its application for home use Giraff facesthe wall when positioned in the docking station Further adatabase is used to handle access rights between pilots androbots In the normal usage the local user has to respond tothe ldquocallsrdquo but an emergency call access level exists

QB [10] see Figure 1(c) has a manually adjustable heightand its base has two dynamically balancing wheels comparedto the more common four wheels for MRP systems The QBcomes with two cameras one five megapixel nontilt frontfacing camera and one down facing camera for navigationDeictic referencing is done with a laser pointer The systemcan be piloted from any browser onWindows andMacintosh[11] The device is suited for office environments

Texai has an alpha prototype [12] see Figure 1(d) witha 1910158401015840 touch screen and a pan-tilt wide-angle web cameramounted on a mobile base equipped with a bumper Ithas two laser-range finders Fully charged the Texai canrun for eight hours It leverages on the open source robotoperative software (ROS) [13] and commercially availablevideo conferencing software To preserve privacy the screenis black when no pilot is using the MRP system Whilethe research on Texai continues a new company SuitableTechnologies [14] has been created in order to take theproduct to the market During the fall of 2012 the companyreleased the new commercial human-height MRP systemcalled Beam see Figure 1(e)The system features include a 1710158401015840screen a six-microphone array enabling pilot users to localizedirections of sound two wide-angle HD cameras (one frontfacing and one down facing) and digital zoom The batterytime is reported to be long enough to last a full workingday The Beam docks backwards and LEDs are used to showit is docked The system can be piloted from Windows andMacintosh

VGo [15] see Figure 1(f) can be piloted from bothWindows andMacintoshThenavigation is done by ldquoclick andgordquo buttons and arrow keys The pilot can take snapshots ofthe local environment as well as zoom up to 5 times in thevideoThe VGO can be used on Verizon 4G LTE andWiFi Ithas a fixed height and comes with two battery options 6 or 12hours

PEBBLES [16] see Figure 1(g) has been designed to allowyoung hospitalized children to attend school embodied in aMRP system and has two versions one for elementary schooland one for high school students (where the latter is smallerin order to adjust to the rotary schedule typical for highschool) The high school version also supports two screensallowing for participation in group activities one screen forcommunication and one for desktop- and file sharing Bothplatforms are characterized by the typical wheeled roboticdevice with a simple arm-like attachment which enables thepilot user to perform a gesture similar to a hand raise Panand tilt units are also present on the head of the robot

A current trend is the use of smartphone technologyandor tablets as integral components in the MRP systemdesign MantaroBot Classic and TeleMe [19] see Figures 1(h)

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction 3

Table 1 An overview of common MRP systems appearing in the literature

MRP system CommercialIntendedapplication

area

Adjustableheight Manipulationexpressions Navigationsensors Selected

references

PRoP No Research No Laser pointer 2 DOFhandarm No [7 8]

Giraff Yes Elderly No No No [9]

QB Yes Office Yes Laser pointer Motion sensors for platformstabilization [10 11 17]

Texai No Office No No Laser-range finders bumper [12]Beam Yes Office No No No [14]

VGo Yes Office No Handheld remote for localcontrol Cliff sensor [15 17 18]

PEBBLES No School No Hand No [16]MantaroBotClassic Yes Office Yes Laser pointer Infrared obstacle detection tip

detection using three accelerometers [19]

MantaroBotTeleMe Yes Office No Laser pointer Infrared obstacle detection tip


Double Yes Unspecified Yesmotorized No Gyroscope and accelerometer for

balance Kick-stands when static [20]

mObi No Research No No Kick-stands for safety [21]

Jazz Connect Yes Office No No

Obstacle detection 8 ultrasonicsensors 4 IR sensors and high-end30m range telemetric laser forautonomous navigation (optional)

[22 23]

iRobot Ava Yes Healthcare Yes Yes

Laser Sonar 2D3D imaging forautonomous navigation Cliff sensorand contact bumper Omnidirectionalnavigation

[24]

9th SenseHelo and Telo Yes Unspecified No No No but ports for peripherals are

available [25]

RP-7 Yes Healthcare No No Omnidirectional navigation Obstacledetection via + 30 infrared sensors [26 27]

MeBot No Research No 3 DOF arms and 3 DOFneck Obstacle and cliff detection [28]

and 1(i) are twoMRP systems where the TeleMe in particularsupports a smart phone or tablet as the head of the robotSkype is used for video conferencing and the pilots can movethe robots around pan and tilt the screen and adjust theheight remotely via a Skype plugin

Similarly using smartphone technologies to controlMRPsystems is of interest in order to promote access anywherefor the pilot operators In this light new interfaces suchas touchscreens can make the task of teleoperation harderand therefore semi-autonomous functions are increasinglyuseful on MRP systems For example Jazz Connect [22] seeFigure 1(j) can be accessed from smartphones or computersvia a web-based interface The robot turns in the directionon which the pilot points and clicks in the video imageA ldquogo tordquo control is available directly in the video imageA warning is given via the pilot interface when the pilotis driving close to obstacles Automatic docking is possiblewhen the Jazz Connect is within 2m from the dockingstation The system offers flexibility in that developers canuse the Gostai Suit to reuse code from other Urbi compatible

robots [23] and to develop new widgets to control the robotiRobot Ava [24] follows a similar design strategy dubbedldquoHead Agnostic Designrdquo where tablets displays and phonesare interchangeable components for the display on the MRPsystem as well as the interaction device for the pilot user (seeFigure 1(k)) Likewise the devices come with an extensivesensor suite and functions for example automized dockingand adjustable height Similarly 9th Sense [25] introducedHelo and Telo (Figures 1(l) and 1(m)) two robots that can beoperated directly via a computer keyboard when connectedto the robots via Skype While both systems are customizablein that they allow for sensor and USB plugins Helo is morecompact and uses a Samsung Galaxy Tab as a head

Also leveraging on the use of tablets for the screen severalof MRP systems utilize standard solutions for the roboticbase The commercially available Segway-like light-weightDouble [20] see Figure 1(n) moves about on two wheels anduses a gyroscope and accelerometers to stay in balanceWhilenot moving kickstands are used to lessen the consumedpower The height of the robot can be adjusted to any height


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

(o) (p) (q) (r)

Figure 1 (a) PRoP (b) Giraff (c) QB (d) Texai (e) Beam (f) VGo (g) PEBBLES (h) MantaroBot Classic (i) MantaroBot TeleMe (j) JazzConnect (k) iRobot Ava (l) 9th Sense Helo (m) 9th Sense Telo (n) Double (o) mObi (p) RP-7 (q) RP-VITA and (r) MeBot

between 100 cm and 150 cmThe robot uses an iPad as a headand it is remotely controlled through an iPad app that the pilotuses to connect to the robot The first MRP system using aballbot technology (mObi [21] see Figure 1(o)) is expected tobe available for researchers and developers during 2013 Therobot balances and moves about on a ball Also this systemuses kickstands as an automatic safety mechanismThe robothead has a docking station for a tablet and is expected tomakeuse of 3D depth sensors

While many of the above systems have been madeavailable recently on the market one of the more establishedMRP systems particularly for the North American marketis the RP-7 (see Figure 1(p)) by InTouch Health [26] Geared

towards operational use in primary and secondary care unitsthe RP-7 design is suitable for a clinical setting conformingto medical regulations as set by the FDA (US Food andDrug Administration) RP-7 features two high-resolutioncameras and a proprietary video conferencing solution fortwo-way communication In the summer of 2012 InTouchHealth together with iRobot unveiled the new RP-VITA(Figure 1(q)) with improved navigation capabilities real timeclinical access to patient data and an iPad interface enablingquick and easy access to pilots navigating the RP-VITA

All of the above mentioned systems have some basicingredients in common These include a typically nonan-thropomorphic appearance and design where only a limited


subset of human skills is possible (eg pan-tilt simple gestic-ulation) and two-way audio and video communication Thisapproach differs fundamentally from other types of telepres-ence systems that involve an anthropomorphic design suchas an android like platform Though this study is restrictedto MRP systems in the nonanthropomorphic sense Figure 2shows some of themore well researched tele-android systemswhich aim primarily in recreating a more realistic face-to-face remote human experience Geminoid HI-2 [29] shownin Figure 2(a) is the first teleoperated android that veryclosely resembles a human while Telenoid (see Figure 2(c))has opted to adopt minimal human likeness in order toconvey a human but unidentifiable presence that is perceivedwithout specific gender or appearance [30 31] Also othersystems which do not fall within the MRP system definitionin this paper include the floating avatar (Figure 2(e)) thatintegrates a blimp with a virtual avatarThe pilots can controlthe blimp from remote and communicate with local usersby transmitting their facial images over the network [32]Another example is the TRiCmini (Figure 2(f)) a doll size lowweight baby-like robot described in [33] While TRiCmini isoperated by the pilot the local user can lift the robot in casethere are barriers and dock it into any electric socket Thelocal user may also easily personalize the robot for exampleby customized clothing

Finally there are a number of MRP systems which arecloser to research prototypes than marketable products Thisincludes the TeCaRob project [34] which aimed to provide acustomized and on-demand remote assistance The platformhad four subsystems (1) a robotic platform consisting of amobile base arms and arm extremities (2) sensors includingcameras thermostats onoff sensors location tracking 3Drendering of end users and so forth (3) an interactionplatform to socialize and (4) a communication platformensuring continuity security and privacy Another exampleis MeBot (Figure 1(r)) which allows pilots to convey socialexpressions by performing gestures on the robot Havingundergone several iterations in its design the final versionMeBot V4 [28] has a mobile and portable base that iscapable to avoid obstacles and detect edges It has two 3DOF arms (shoulder rotation shoulder extension and elbowextension) and its face is mounted on a 3 DOF neck allowingMeBot to pan tilt and move forwardbackward The robotmimics the pilotrsquos head movements by using a head pose andorientation estimation API while the arm movements aredirectly controlled by the pilot who adjusts the joints on apassive model of the robot A 3D mouse is used to movethe robot in relation to its current location and its pointer isvisualized on an overhead display that also contains sensordata The pilot user observes the local environment througha custom built screen that has a camera embedded in themiddle to aid the users in establishing eye contact

3 Application Areas for MRP Systems

While MRP systems are suitable for a range of applicationsthere are a number of specific challenges depending onthe domain of use Of the possible applications for MRPsystems three are particularly dominant in the literature

office environments health care and aging in place (theability to live safely independently and comfortable in onersquosown home regardless of age income or ability level) forelderly A possible fourth area which is gaining attentionis usage of MRP systems for school environments Thefollowing section describes the use ofMRP systems delimitedby application area

31 MRP Systems for Office Environments In societies wherethe geographic distance between teams who are cooperatingis increasing a set of different MRP systems (QB Texaiand VGo) has been tested in office environments The MRPsystems allow remote coworkers to visit their local coworkersand participate in formal as well as informal meetingsPromotion of these MRP systems derives from the gain todecrease the amount of travelling for the employees andalso to allow immediate access to another site where theemployees are needed meanwhile it also decreases the costsfor travelling for the companies An important factor forsuccessful collaborations is the ability to interact informallyHowever typically such communication is brief and notscheduled [3] Further such communication requires com-munication channels that are interactive and expressive [335ndash37] Already in 2002 [38] a MRP system was describedwhich allowed pilots to participate in meetings in remotelocations Further developments of the systemwere presentedin [39 40] and a large segment of the research has beenperformed at companies in the United States of America forexample [3 41 42]

An office environment poses a number of challengesparticular for MRP system usage One challenge is tounderstand how social norms common in the workplace areaffectedwhen interaction between colleagues occurs viaMRPsystems Social norms using the Texai as a shared resourceamong remote coworkers to drive through and communicatewith local workers at three different workplaces in the SanFrancisco Bay area CA USA were examined in [3] By per-forming interviews observations and surveys with peopleafter 2ndash18months of experience of usage ofMRP systems theauthors found that the pilots and local users worked almost asif the pilots were there physically Similarly to [42] they foundthat the Texai supported informal communications Beforeintroducing the Texai to colleagues at the company whichdeveloped it the company used the telephone and videoconferencing technology to interact with remote coworkersThis often resulted in the remote coworker being left out ofmeetings and important decision taking [3] After surveyingusers it was found that the MRP system was perceived asuseful and effective It was used for a range of activitiesincluding impromptu meetings and planned meetings Sincemost informal communication occurs in hallways this hadimplications for the placement of docking stations Dockingstations were strategically placed in high traffic areas andeating areaswhile still being close tomeeting roomsDepend-ing on whether the pilot user had its own office desk thepilot typically parked in the lab or at hisher own office deskLocal users dropped by the office desk in case they wantedto communicate The system was reported to give moreindependence to the remote pilot user However pilot users


(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

Figure 2 (a) Geminoid HI-2 (b) Geminoid F (c) Telenoid (d) Elfoid (e) Floating avatar and (f) TRiCmini

reported that it was difficult to focus on the social interactionwhilemoving aroundwith locals in hallways Due to theMRPsystems being a shared resource it was found that an identifi-cation system of who is embodying the Texai was needed In[41] an analysis of the results from five different studies withQB and VGo performed at Google Mountain View Califor-nia USA was presentedThe authors grouped the results intoa set of guidelines regarding different aspects ofMRP systemsvideo audio user interface physical features autonomousnavigation and social considerations that is provision ofappropriate occupance awareness based on performance anduser feedback How peoplemake sense of aMRP system in anoffice context was studied in [43] that analyzes what differentmetaphors people (locals and pilots) used during an 8-weekfield trial in an effort to shed on light whether the MRPsystem was treated more like human or more like a machineAlso the authors of [3] discussed usage norms drawn fromother technologies for example ldquohanging uprdquo when havingconcluding a conversation at inappropriate places Othernorms relating to helping the pilot were also observed

Additional challenges in office environments are relatedto sound perception and sound disturbance (as many officeenvironments are open workplaces) For example that boththe local user and the remote pilot user could adjust thevolume of the Texai was found to be an important factor [3]The challenge of regulating the speech volume of the pilot wasdescribed in [44] In particular due to pilots frequently beingperceived as loud in local environments they performed anexperiment where they provided the pilot with an attenuatedstream of the pilotrsquos own voice and thereby could improvethe experience for the local users as the pilot spoke less loudHowever the improvement was only made when the pilotswere using headsets and not when using loudspeakers Inorder to increase the scene awareness and allow the pilot toobtain a better indication of the number of sound sourcesand their directions [45] examined the possibility to enhancethe experience of the pilot in terms of improving the soundperception of a local environment The approach was tointegrate Hark and a visualization tool allowing pilots toldquoseerdquo in which direction a sound originated In a controlledexperiment it was found that it was possible to localizesurrounding sounds at a tolerance of 5 degrees however witha degrading performancewhen the userswere closer together

In general an office environment like other applica-tion areas requires a level of robustness security and data

integrity In [42] the QB was used to connect to work fromhome during one week The experimenter found safety andreliability issues in the WiFi coverage resulting in frozenimages and disconnections leaving him insecure whether therobot continued moving or not Guizzo [42] highlights thevulnerability to hacker attacks and the issue of having to askothers to reboot the QB for him

Summarizing the experiences of evaluatingMRP systemsin office environments the systems need to support theremote pilot user in the participation in meetings andengaging in informal interaction with the local coworkersAt an office informal interaction typically occurs in eatingareas and in the hallways on the way to (or from) meetingsTherefore it is important that the MRP systems supportinteractionwhen the pilot user is on themove Since theMRPsystems are also used at meetings it is also important to aidthe pilot in percepting sound and to localize the directionfrom which sounds are coming

32 MRP Systems for Health Care Extensive evaluationsin particular with the RP-7 (or RP-6) have been done tostudy the value of MRP systems in health care The studieswhich are still ongoing show that the use of MRP systemshas reduced the length of stay not only after minor invasivesurgeries but also at intensive care units (ICU) as well asreduced response times in emergency situations

321 Postoperative Care after Minor Invasive Surgery Thepostoperative period afterminor invasive surgical proceduresusually results in a hospital stay lasting between 24 and72 hours Patient safety and satisfaction with either onlybed-side rounds or added robotic rounds were assessed in[46] No major or minor morbidities were observed and23 of the patients agreed that telerounds should be partof regular hospital care The patients also stated that theywould rather be seen remotely by their own physician than byanother physicianThe authors had previously studied patientsatisfaction in a similar study [47] in which the patients statedtheywould feel comfortablewith telerounds in future hospitalcare Approximately 75 thought it should become standardin postoperative management

The financial impact of telerounds with regards to lengthof stay was examined in [48] The mean length of stayamong the patients having the extra telerounds was 126days compared to 233 days for the patients only having


bed-side rounds The readmission rates were low in bothgroups of patients but even lower among the patients who hadtelerounds The extra telerounds resulted in earlier dischargeand an increased bed capacity at the hospital

322 Orthopedic Postoperative Care with Longer HospitalStay The patientsrsquo and nursesrsquo satisfaction of using teler-ounds during evening and weekend ward rounds in anorthopedic clinical setting was examined in [49] Also in thispilot study patients agreed that the care improved as a resultof telerounds and that it should be a part of patient care athospitals Patients thought they could communicate easilywith their doctor and felt comfortable having teleroundsevery day They even said they would be satisfied with onlytelerounds on the weekends As found in [46] they preferto see their own doctor via telerounds than another doctorat their bed sides The response from the staff correlatedwith the response from the patients All patients agreed itshould be part of the routine in managing the postoperativepatients duringwhich observation is of importanceHoweverthe authors also pointed out disadvantages and key issuesincluding security andnetwork stability aswell as the inabilityto open doors and move between floors

323 Experiences at Intensive Care Units (ICU) Severalarticles report on improved response time as a result ofthe deployment of MRP systems The consultation time atan ICU was reduced especially during ldquooff-hoursrdquo in [50]Patients could be seen within 5 minutes instead of thephysician travelling for 40 minutes Vespa reported on apreliminary study onusage of telerounds in combinationwithbrain monitoring at a neurologic ICU [51 52] The responsetime decreased and the level of face-to-face contact betweenphysician and patients increased The effects of physiciansusing telerounds during evening time and as a response tonursing pages were studied in [53] The response time forroutine and urgent pages changed from 218 plusmn 186 minutes to92 plusmn 93 minutes an important time saving when addressingbrain conditions thatmay be irreversible Also [54] advocatedthe usage of MRP systems in stroke care Round-the-clockaccess to experts in stroke care could benefit patients andlead to fewer inappropriate transfers to other hospitals higheralignment to best practices and so forth The length ofstay at the ICU decreased and resulted in reduced costs forcaring [53] Other uses of the MRP system reported in thisstudy were mentoring nurses discussions on admission anddischarging as well as treatment protocols

Experiences of having a MRP system at a surgical ICUand a burn ICU showed that it was used by critical expertiseduring night time ward rounds and to respond on pager callsin [55] The families and patientsrsquo perception of the use oftelerounds for a multidisciplinary team at a surgical ICU unitwas investigated in [56] An identified problem at the unit wasthat the normal rounds were causing noise and traffic Thisprocess was changed so that the patient had a morning bed-side visit and a physical examination by surgical residentsand nurse practitioners after which the multidisciplinaryteam met in a conference room from where they visited thepatient via a MRP system and later planned the patientrsquos

care A focused group of the multidisciplinary team wouldthen visit the patient individually to implement the planThepatientsfamilies were reported to perceive better quality inthe care and supported continued use

324 Experiences of Use in Surgery and Teaching The impactof a MRP system during anatomy laboratory sessions onstudent and surgeon satisfaction was investigated in [57]With the MRP system the remote surgeon could navigatethe room and the service platform tilt and pan the screenand get close-up views by zooming The students reportedthey had a positive experience and mostly felt comfortablewith the presence of the MRP system At times they forgotthe surgeon was not there physically Also the surgeon had apositive experience and claimed to at times forget about thephysical distance The mobility was seen as an improvementto usage of existing fixed systems that typically lack face-to-face contact with the students The authors discuss that whilesimulation allows the performing of hundreds of proceduresbeingmonitored by an expert is always beneficial while doinga new procedure However that usually requires that theexpert leaves its practice or that the students come to theexpertrsquos institution in which the equipment and supportingstaff is different from the studentrsquos home setting

The usage of aMRP system inminimally invasive surgerywas examined in [58] A senior surgeon monitored theoperation room during a total of five procedures via theMRP system The surgeon managed to feel immersed in theoperating room and effectively communicated with a juniorattendee No surgery was disrupted due to the presence of theMRP system The senior consultant could easily maneuverthe MRP system around the room and had the same viewas the one of the operation team and as the system couldlink in external camera views The authors point out somepossible uses of the system (1) capture and magnify imagesand send back to the operational team via the MRP systemwhile explaining significances of the images and planningthe appropriate approach in difficult steps (2) use linkedinvideo feeds to provide a more thorough consultation (3)mentoring and consultation worldwide (4) time sensitivesituations during surgery requiring immediate consultationfrom an expert and (5) to providemedical expertise to novicesurgeons at hospitals in developing countries

A report on the OTOROB project was provided in [59]The OTOROB is equipped with a flexible arm that canenhance a physicianrsquos vision of the patient as he can movethe camera It is also equipped with instruments essentialin orthopedic care The authors claim that different tasksmay require different robots and although the OTOROB isdesigned with the orthopedic surgeon in mind a similarpathway could be used when designing systems for otherspecialties

Also the potential of using MRP systems in nursingeducation was investigated in [60] Ten faculty membersinvolved in different programs were asked to participate ina study in which they would recruit 5ndash10 students eachwho they remotely taught a medical-surgical nursing skillwith the aid of a simulator and RP-7 The topic was thefaculty memberrsquos choice The teaching and debriefing session


lasted about one hour after which they were asked to filla questionnaire Most students and faculty members ratedtheir acceptance as high Similarly to the results in [57] thestudents felt as if the facultymemberswere physically present

325 Postoperative Care in Home A pilot project that runs ata childrenrsquos hospital in Boston MA USA in which they testif VGo can be used to monitor patients at home after earlydischarge was reported in [61] Instead of taking children tothe hospital for regular check-ups they are monitored duringvideo consultations by physicians who have never visited thehome of the patient

33 MRP Systems for Elderly and Aging in Place Stay inplace aging for an increasing elderly population in westerncountries and Japan represents a highly suitable applicationarea for MRP systems MRP systems could serve variousfunctions simultaneously such as health surveillance socialinteraction and safeguarding It is possible to equip a MRPsystem with medical devices serve as a link for health careprofessionals simultaneously collect data about the elderlyand most importantly promote social interaction for a groupwho is prone to isolation and loneliness For safeguardingMRP systems could work as an emergency alert systemif a person had fallen and thereby be connected to otherdevices in a smart home [62] A number of evaluations of theldquoTelerobot systemrdquo as anMRP device in domestic settings arepresented in [63ndash68]

A characteristic feature of using MRP systems for agingin place whether in a private home or residential facility isthat the systems are to be used over extensive periods of timeTherefore typical measures of evaluation such as acceptanceand usability are applicable from a longitudinal perspectiveConcepts like ldquouse worthinessrdquo [69] become central to thedesign and use of the system A second characteristic forthis application domain is that the local users are fragile andcommonly have a low experience of computer technologiesThis implies that any button that the local user may needto push should have an intuitive meaning and be easy toaccess A third challenge is that the homes are often crowdedwith memories of the elderrsquos previously active life as wellas of equipment related to the current needs for examplewheelchairs andwalkers leaving little space for aMRP systemboth during its idle state and while moving Further theenvironment often has poor lightning which could makethe movement of the robot more difficult than for examplein office environments The Giraff robot is currently beingevaluated over long periods of time with elderly in theExCITE project [4] The long term methodology of ExCITE[70] is circular in which the feedbacks collected regularlyfrom the pilots and local users are fed back to the developersin order to enhance the Giraff according to the needs of usersThemethodology is somewhat similar to the one proposed in[71] which included prototyping field testing in residentialcare settings assessment of for example satisfaction andfurther development Within the scope of the project anumber of experiments have been reported which concern(1) health care professional views on MRP systems and a

comparison between junior and senior professionals and (2)measures for successful interaction with real elderly groupsthat include physiological measures as well as measuringspatial and social presence [72ndash76]

Also [2] has performed a set of studies using elderlypersons as pilots It was found that in certain cases the elderlyprefer to pilot a MRP system rather than receiving a visitvia the MRP system Currently several research initiativesare focusing on increasing the MRP system utility by addingmonitoring capabilities to the systems [77 78] In the Giraff-Plus project [78] a system is being created that reasons oncollected data from environmental and physiological sensorsand allows the pilot user to access such data and interactwith the elder throughGiraffThe system which is developedin a closed-loop methodology involving various groups ofpotential users can be used by elderly in need of monitoringby for example nurses physicians and physiotherapists atdistance All such user groups are typically unfamiliar withthe home environment of the elder and thus there is a needfor including a map in the client software for many potentialusers of this kind of MRP system

34 MRP Systems for School Few MRP systems have beendeveloped to help children to attend school even when athospital or during long term illness at home PEBBLES wastried successfully with elementary school children in Canadaand USA Additional MRP systems used in the class room toachieve interaction with classmates and teachers are RBOT100 developed by Moscowrsquos 3Detection Labs [79] VGo [8081] and Texai [82] Also [83] mentioned this possible useof MRP systems along with the reverse use where a teachercould deliver lectures at distant locations

Three case studies with PEBBLES have shown that illchildren could engage in the same task as their class matesmaintain concentration and communicate [84] Over timePEBBLES has technically changed according to results froma set of user evaluations The different versions are brieflydescribed in [85] Realizing that light or flashes were insuf-ficient attention devices in PEBBLES I [86] one of newfeatures in PEBBLES 2 [85] was a waveable hand Althoughthe hand was found to be effective in gaining the teacherrsquosattention it raised safety concerns Evaluations also showedthat the system was inappropriate for high school studentsthat typicallymove between classrooms Further it was founddifficult to transmit the literature to the ill studentsThereforethe PEBBLES II5 was provided with an extra LCD screenattached to the front of the robot To improve the view forthe ill student an extra camera providing a global view of theclassroomwas added In addition a scanner and printer wereinstalled at both user ends to improve the logistics To dealwith the safety concerns the hand was shortened relocatedand made of a soft fabric A lightweight portable high schoolversion of PEBBLES with built-in collaboration tools wasreported on in [87] The system was sufficiently small to beplaced on a desk However the version had the limitation thatit could only be rotated 45∘ less than how a human can turnthe head


35 General MRP Systems Today the trend seems to gotowards building cheap systems that make use of stan-dard hardware and software for robotics (ROS) and videocommunication (Skype) This has prompted a number ofmore generic MRP systems without a particular applicationdomain MITRO is an ongoing research project at Swarmlab[88] that makes use of and contributes to ROS MITROincorporates the Microsoft Kinect sensor uses Skype forvideo conferencing and has two cameras (similarly to theQB one is pointing forward and one downwards) To provideassisted control and augmented telepresence the robot is ableto perform (simultaneous localization and mapping) SLAMavoid obstacles with a range of sensors people and facetracking Being inspired by [42] a MRP system for about$1000 was assembled in [89] In contrast to the commonfour wheels on MRP systems Schneider used only one wheelto level the system A netbook sitting atop of a camerais mounted on a tripod atop the robotic base The systemautomatically halts and tells the pilot on which side the robothits an obstacle and an ultrasonic sensor is used to measurethe distance to the nearest obstacles for each command Asystem with multiple off-the-shelf to iRobots attached robotsattached to laptops for unconfined video conferencing andcontributed with motion planning algorithms that maintainsa good frontal view of the local user for as long as possiblewas introduced in [90] The WU Telepresence Robot a lowcost robot using off-the-shelf parts and open source software[91] can be ordered online and be assembled within a coupleof hours TheWU Telepresence robot uses Ubuntu and ROS

4 User Evaluation Studies

Evaluation of MRP systems is particularly complex as sev-eral types of interactions occur simultaneously The firstis human-robot interaction that is the interaction whichoccurs between the local person and the MRP device perse The second is human-computer interaction which is theinteraction that occurs between the pilot user and the desktopapplication used to connect to the MRP device The last ishuman-human interaction which occurs between the twousers local and pilot of the system via the MRP device Asfound in for example [3] the burden of moving the MRPsystem also influences how well a pilot user and local usercan interact In this section we will discuss a number oftechniques to evaluate the interaction and the client interfaceused to move the MRP systems around that are typicallyaiming at lowering the burden of the pilot user and thusincreasing the possibility for ldquogoodrdquo interactionThe results ofthe studies reported have implications for the design of futureMRP systems These design implications are summarized inSection 5

41 Quality of Communication Measures To maintain a fluidand natural interaction it is important to respond appropri-ately when being addressed ldquoAttention is fundamental to theflow of face-to-face conversationrdquo page 1 [92] Each partic-ipant in an interaction project cues where their attention isdirectedThe cues are interpreted by the other participants to

maintain an awareness of the specific participantrsquos attentionand to understand its deictic referencing

Presence is a multidimensional concept [93] and manyquestionnaires to measure presence exist Commonly two ofthe dimensions are social and spatial presence which are bothof particular relevance for MRP systems Shortly describedspatial presence occurs when a personrsquos perception fails toaccurately acknowledge the role of technology that makes itappear as if that heshe is in a remote environment Socialpresence on the other hand occurs when a person fails toacknowledge the role of the technology in the communica-tion with others

In evaluations of MRP systems assessments of attentionand presence are often used as a means to compare systemswith varied characteristics regardingmovability of the screencamera andor the camerarsquos capability of zooming

The ability to move has been found to have severaleffects For example a turnable display resulted in a higherlevel of activity perceived excitement of the speakers levelof attentiveness and engagement and amount of turns persecond during satellite-hub interaction when compared tointeraction through a video conferencing system with astatic display [92] The study included sociometric measuresfeedback from the pilot of the system semi-structured andseveral individually filled questionnaires However the abilityto turn the display also came with tradeoffs such as that anyof the local users can be turned away from and thereby feelexcluded fromdiscussionAn important result from the studyis that sociometricmeasures aremore demonstrative than theresponse on a subjective questionnaire

The ability tomove the camera forward and backwardwasfound to have significant effects on the social presence whencomparing five different conditions fixed rotatable movablebut nonrotatable movable and automatically moving [94]User-control when moving a robot resulted in a higher socialpresence than when the robot moved automatically A smallexperiment where sliding movements resulted in similareffects on social presence as the forward-backward motionis also reported on in [94] To clarify the effects of a remotecamerarsquos zooming and displayrsquosmovement on social presencethe work presented in [95] uses results from two experimentsthat compare (a) relations between the presenter moving andcamera zooming (with or without synchronization) and (b)relations between the presenter moving and display mov-ing (with or without synchronization) Via a questionnaireespecially developed for the study the authors found thatthe zoom caused greater feeling of presence when facingtalking with and viewing a presenter that moved either ina synchronized or nonsynchronized way with the zoom Onthe contrary the zoom was found to cause reductions inperceived audio and video quality when the presenter was notmoving It was also found that the movement of the displayincreased the social presence

The perceived presence during a training session withalarm operators and health care professionals with the Giraffwas studied in [72] The participants followed a realisticscenario inwhich they ldquovisited an elderrdquo afterwhich theywereasked to fill a survey with questions regarding perceived easeof use and presence The questionnaires used were based on


the Temple presence inventory [96] and Networked mindssocial presence inventory [97] typically applied in human-computer interaction domainswhich both had been used alsoin [28] It was found that the questionnaires were applicablealso in the MRP system domain Correlations were foundbetween how ldquopresentrdquo and ldquoattentiverdquo users were duringthe virtual visit and with how they performed when drivingthe robot for example ease of docking navigation in theenvironment [72] In a further study [75] it was examinedhow the novice pilot users spatially configured themselveswith respect to the elder while being embodied in GiraffTheencoding of spatial formations was done by using the spatialformations defined in the Kendon F-formations system Itwas found that some of the novice pilot users also formedanother unexpected spatial formation It was a formation inwhich the pilot users did not turn Giraff towards the elder insituationswhere it would be natural to be turned towards eachother in a human-human interaction Further correlationswere found between the participantsrsquo perceived presence andhow they adhered to the natural spatial configurations whenmaneuvering the Giraff thereby suggesting that perceivedpresence can also be observed by the manner in which theGiraff is being navigated [69]

Using theMeBot platform [28]measured social presencetrust cooperation and engagement and illustrated that socialexpressions were ranked higher with a gesturing MeBot thanwith a MeBot not performing any gesturing In an effort toanalyze the interpretability of gestures facial expressions andperception of a group discussion [98] performed two videostudies where they found that facial expressions combinedwith supportive gestures resulted in more correct interpreta-tions of the expressions a higher confidence in having under-stood the expressions and a larger impact of themessage thanfor the case of only facial expressions The participants con-sidered the collaborator embodied in a static screen withoutsupportive gestures as being less involved in the conversationthan a collaborator who could support the facial expressionswith gestures The participants also perceived both theembodied collaborator and the colleagues involved in theinteraction as being more composed and involved when theembodied collaborator took a leadership role in the interac-tion Spatial location recalling with a similar type of systemas MeBot making use of Skype and arms was investigated in[99] It was found that participants facing a systemwith verballocation descriptions accompanied by robotic pointing ges-tures rememberedmore locations in comparison with partic-ipants facing a system that only provided verbal descriptionswhen the locations were presented nonsequentially

The effects of varying the visual framing (decorationversus no decoration) of a MRP system and the verbalframing of the pilot (interdependent versus independentperformance) in a desert task study were examined in [100]They found that participants who were informed that theirperformance would be evaluated as a team with the pilotwere producing more in-group behaviors Contrary to theirexpectations they found that visual framing of the MRPsystem weakened the team cohesion The dynamics foundin the study was found to be different to the one in human-computer and computer-mediated communication

According to [38] several factors are needed to experi-ence a location in an immersive way among which manip-ulation of objects was one of the outlined factors Alsoseveral other factors are needed to experience a locationimmersive including a wide high-resolution visual field withaccuracy preserved gaze and life-like appearances (ie havingthe same horizontal and vertical visual angles when seemfrom remote) high-dynamic range of audiowith a directionalsoundfield and the ability tomove around in the environment[38] With the goal to provide benefits of physical travelin an immersive way [38] described a mutually immersiveMRP system equipped with arms that would allow pilots toparticipate in meetings in remote locations

Also in [101] an attempt to find communication per-formance measures for evaluating MRP systems was madeThe authors provide a list of quantitative measures drawnfrom fields such as human-computer interaction computer-supported cooperative work communication and psychol-ogy

42 Attitudes and Acceptance Measures Attitude measuresto robotics have been studied in a variety of domains touncover differences in attitudes relating to specific technicalsolutions or to cultural effects The applicability of NegativeAttitude toward Robots Scale (NARS) originally presented in[102] on MRP systems was studied in [103] By performingthree different studies (1) video evaluation (2) pilot a MRPsystem and (3) interact with a MRP system the authorsfound that NARS may be applied in the MRP systemdomain However [103] suggested that the NARS-S3 whichregards the perceived emotions when talking to robots ingeneral may need to be modified towards less general termsAlso culture gender and prior experience to robots werefound to influence the NARS score and participants beinggenerally positive to robots were more positive to the MRPsystems Similarly to [92] the authors emphasized the need tocomplement questionnaires with other methods They usedethnographic methods such as observations and interviewswhile claiming that numbers alone can only highlight issuesbut not explain the reason for them

Also when measuring attitudes other parameters havebeen used as indicators For example it is suggested in [104]that eye contact and height are important factors that canhave an impact on the attitude For example children chose asignificantly shorter distance to the 112 cm tallMobi (not to beconfusedwithmObi fromBossaNovaRobotics) Jr (268 cm)than to the 175 cm tall Mobi Sr (704 cm) during interactionsobserved at an arts and technology festival There were alsosignificant differences between genders in the teenager andadult groups Females chose an in average longer distance tothe robots thanmen Further it was found of importance thatthe pilotrsquos face was shown during interaction in [105] in whicha robot guided people at an exhibitionThe participants facedthe robot and interacted longerwith the robotwhen it showedthe face of the pilot and subjectively rated the robotwith a facehigher

A closed-loop methodology including prototyping fieldtesting in residential care settings assessment on for exam-ple satisfaction and further development was proposed in


[71]The authors reported on focus groups within the ASSISTproject thatwere given a demonstration on a proposed systemvia video before discussing cost functionality interfacecomplexity and special versus general purpose In the studythe robot uBot-4 primarily a research robot was used asa prototype for mobile manipulation The uBot-4 and thelater version uBot-5 had an LCD screen which is nonexistingon the uBot-6 [106] The elderly focus group was positive tovideo communication technology and stated that impairmentwould overrun concerns about privacy They further seemedless afraid of technologies they did not understand whenbelieving the technology could be a benefit to them Speciallyappreciated with the methodology was the access to theresearchers and their willingness to respond to questions andconcerns This implies that a closed-loop methodology asproposed in ASSIST might improve early adoption

43 Societal and Ethical Issues There has been a subset ofworks that are concerned with measuring and reporting ongeneral concerns on the uptake ofMRP systemswhen appliedin homes or at hospitals These issues as well as ethicalconcerns are typically reported when MRP systems are firstintroduced or presented

The awareness of robot applications among medical andhealth care professionals was examined in [107] Concernsfound were loss of human interaction replacement of profes-sionals and staff costs and health care coverage The authorswrote that applications could be eased in acceptance by beingcost effective in design and implementation appropriatelydefining tasks and increasing knowledge about on-goingresearch and appropriate human-robot interaction Theyalso discussed how to educate medical and health carestudentsprofessionals and suggested cross-publishing in dif-ferent communities and coverage of both the medicalhealthand the robotics field at conferences Similar concerns (ieloss of human interaction and replacement of professionalsand staff) were found in a video-based evaluation regardingthe Giraff system with different groups of primary healthcare organizations [73] In this study the teachers were morepositive than students (as in [57]) demonstrating that agreater exposure to technology does not necessarily increasethe acceptance It was also found in this study that therewere large variances between different categories of primarycaregivers The study [73] provides a number of suggestionswith respect to increasing the acceptance of technology forelderly for example early introduction to technology duringthe education

In an attempt to determine motives for implementingrobotic telemedicine programs in emergency and criticalcare in North America and Europe a web-based surveywas performed [108] The results indicate that there are nocultural issues creating barriers which impede acceptanceof MRP systems Similarly to what was reported in [107]factors perceived to impede the uptake of MRP systemsrelate to regulations and costs Motives for implementing andmaintaining a program are improved quality filling servicegaps immediate access to patients provision of clinicalsupport and addressing patient satisfaction

Results from focus groups with health care professionalselderly and a set of users (eg engineers physiotherapistsand physicians) were presented in [64] Potential applicationsfor MRP systems included monitoring of autonomy loss andpatient abilities rapid access when released from hospitaland remote training of caregivers Ethical issues regarding thecamera and privacy as well as usability issues regarding sizeand cost of robot were reported in [65]

How elderly reacted to the Texai was examined in [2]When being asked with whom they would like to interactfamily interactionswere the number onemotivation for usingthe system Concerns raised were mainly due to etiquetteprivacy and misuse of the system

44 Technical Measures A number of studies have evaluatedthe technical aspects connected to the robot and the pilotinterfaceThepilot interface is critical with respect to usabilityof the system and has been evaluated in terms of effectivnessand security of operations navigation strategies and mentalworkload In addition specific technical aspects have beenstudied to assess if and howmuch the aforementioned aspectscontribute to usability In particular semi-autonomyhas beenstudied in several settings using different platforms Finallyan important and yet unresolved issue is the problem of lostWiFi connection

441 Pilot Interface Design Interfaces used to connect tothe robot are as critical as the robot design for creatingconditions for successful interaction A number of studiesfocus primarily on evaluation and interface design for thepilot users Efficiency and security of operation were limitedby interface design in a pilot study on two MRP systemsin [63] The visual information and the control mechanismsimpacted performance In a further study [66] novice pilotsperformed six different tasks in home-like conditions usingthree different navigation systems The compared systemswere (1) Video-Centric Display (VC2D) (2) AugmentedReality Display (AR3D) and (3) Mixed Perspective Exo-centric Display (ME3D) Particularly for women people over30 years of age and those working less than 22 h a weekwith computers the ME3D was the most effective in termsof completion time and quality of commands in movingtasks The AR3D was preferable in precise navigation tasksThe perceived ease of use and perceived performance werethe highest for ME3D and the lowest for VC2D The resultscorroborate previous research findings for example [109ndash113]

Pros and cons with hand gesturing in comparison withcontrol by a mouse or a joystick was discussed in [114] Manyof the problems were associated with the need to wear a dataglove but it was also found that hand gestures were moretireding and required the pilot to remember a set of possiblegestures On the contrary it was found more easy to use foroperations such as grasping

Navigation strategies were studied with ten rehabilitationprofessionals when performing a set of navigation tasks inunknown home-like environments 2-3 weeks after receivingtraining on a user interface [67 68] It was found that the


pilots with worse performance used more commands anddrove closer to obstacles Further the worst pilots needed lessassistance due to keeping a lower speed in general Also thegaze behavior during the navigation was analyzed and thepilots mostly gazed at the radar area The authors concludethat the radar area seems to have provided the users withuseful feedback on distance to objects

442 Semi-Autonomy How semi-autonomous functionali-ties could be used in assisting driving was examined in [115]A number of concrete technical solutions were implemented(1) create a map of recent obstacles and (2) create a trajectoryof the free path Twenty four users were selected to pilotthe Texai through an obstacle course Measured parameterswere time of task (completing obstacle course) and numberof errorscollisions It was found that while the assistedteleoperation helped people to avoid obstacles also the timeto complete an obstacle course increased A guiding principleis to have two different video profiles one dynamic usedduring movement and one for stationary use where a higherresolution might be more desired [41] If sensor informationis available it must be correct and provided with timing Inorder not to overwhelm the pilot only the readings relevantfor the pilot should be provided Most users requested a mapin the user interface and a wide-angle web cam that couldbe panned or tilted To safely use the robot autonomousbehaviours such as follow a person and go to a specifiedlocation were found to be necessary This in combinationwith the ability to pan the camera would aid the pilot inwalking conversations a need that is highlighted in [42]where the robot is used in office environments and could beexpected to walk at the same speed as local persons

Semi-autonomous functionalities particularly for thehome environment have also been studied This is par-ticularly useful for novice pilot users such as health careprofessionals with little exposure to ICT technologies Threepreliminary studies conducted during the production ofthe first prototype of Telerobot were reported on in [64]As homes have many physical constraints for exampledoorsteps doorframes and carpets a set of trials were per-formed exploring different means of navigation It was notedthat position point navigation worked better for untrainedpilots while waypoint navigation worked better for trainedpilots Also within the ExCITE project efforts presentedin [116] are made to apply semi-autonomous functionsBased on user feedback via questionnaires and interviewsfrom 15 people having driven at least two different Giraffsmultiple times the authors describe algorithmic solutions toautomatic docking detecting obstacles and self-localizationon a map

Another way to measure how different means for navi-gation affect the quality of a pilot interface is to measure themental workload with the NASATLX test [117]Thismeasurewas used together with the USE Questionnaire [118] in astudy in which ten novice participants navigated the Giraff byfollowing a dotted path on the floor via different checkpointsand performing a task received along the track of checkpoints[119]

Presence has also been evaluated in systems with partialautonomy A system equipped with a semi-autonomousnavigation control semi-autonomous people tracking andimproved situational awareness was compared with a systemlacking assisted control in [120] Using Witmer and Singerrsquospresence questionnaire [121] they found that the user satis-faction was significantly higher for the system with assistedcontrol

443 Communication Channel Reliability and RobustnessWhen using a MRP system the pilot of the system is not atthe location of the system and as such the pilot neither canpush the system back into areas with WiFi coverage in caseof a lost connection nor can ask the local users to push thesystem back as the connection is lostThis issue was discussedin [122] with the claim that it needs to be addressed beforereal deployments can be made possible This is importantdue to limitations in range of WiFi and also because metalobjects such as elevators can cause invisible network shadowsThe solution discussed to overcome the problem is reversingthe motion in slow speed until sufficient access to the WiFiis recovered However the MRP system needs to halt incase it cannot acquire the connection after a limited amountof seconds as the reason may be due to the network Thissolution does not work if new obstacles (ie doors) have justclosed behind themThe authors further suggested that a lightor backup beep could be used to indicate the robotrsquos intentionparticularly when it is being unoccupied

To achieve a sufficient audio and video quality duringinteraction through a MRP system there is again a need fora reliable connection without latencies or high data losses Anumber of measures of audio and video quality are suggestedin [101] These include the ITU-T Recommendation P805[123] for subjectively measuring the quality of speech P910[124] for subjectively testing the multimedia content andthe Perceptual Evaluation of Video Quality (PEVQ) [125] forobjectively measuring video signal quality using simulationtests

5 Design Implications for FutureMRP Systems

While each of the different application areas discussed in thispaper has their own specific challenges the results of theevaluations and the current technological trends can be usedto outline a set of common design implications for developersof future MRP systems

One of the key aspects to consider is privacy It shouldbe possible to see whether there is anyone embodied in thesystem or if it is unused Different solutions for the problemexist today for example the Texai [12] uses a black screenwhen the system is not in use Giraff [9] takes it one stepfurther by directing the screen and thus the camera towardsthe wall while charging the robot Following the principle ofprivacy it should also be possible to identify the person tryingto connect or currently embodying the MRP system [3]

Another important consideration is the matter of costand adaptability to different client user platforms and needsToday there are several systems that leverage on the use of the


open source software Skype and the standard hardware andsoftware for robotics (ROS) It is our belief that MRP systemsshould support various client platforms

We have outlined a number of user evaluations andstudies on pilot interface design and semi-autonomousfunctionalities where it was found that assisted driving ispreferable for example [87 115 120] that a map of theenvironment is needed for example [41 61 78 116] andthat means are needed for lowering the burden of the pilotssuch as obstacle avoidance [115 116] and assisted docking[116] However none of them have considered how to bestsupport a pilot user who connects to a MRP system througha smartphone or tablet device For pilots using such systemsit is likely to be even more important that the client interfaceincludes a map of the environment on which the pilot canmake requests where to go by clicking at different locationsas well as help to dock the robots and avoid obstacles

Already today several of the existing MRP systemsoffer an adjustable height [12 19 20 24] The results of[104] support the need for an adjustable height as peopleof different length preferred robots of different height andadjusted their distance to them accordingly The need foran adjustable height can be further motivated by the use ofMRP systems in office contexts While a lot of the informalcommunication occurs in hallways where local users areusually standing or walking the same local users can beexpected to sit around a table during meetings Similar issueshave been raised also from elderly involved in evaluationswithin the ExCITE project [70]

Finally a yet unresolved issue is the communicationchannel robustness andwhat to do if a connection to theMRPsystem is lost due to loss of theWiFi connection Particularlyin home environments inhabited by fragile elderly with alow experience of computer technologies it is important todevelop methodologies for how to resolve the issue as theelderly cannot be expected to be able to push the systemback to a zone with WiFi coverage or to the docking stationFurther as new technologies for connecting to the internetarise for example the 4G it would be advisable to allow thelocal user to choose what type of internet connection shouldbe used for example a LANconnectionwith awireless routeror a 4G dongle

6 Future Outlook

This paper has provided an overview of the literature in theexpanding field of social robotic telepresence The futureoutlook for the area is promising and there are several eventsthat show an increase in the development and evaluation ofmobile robotics telepresence systems Such events includeworkshops and dedicated discussion groups For examples apanel discussion on Robot Telepresence with representativesfrom ATR VGo Communications Giraff Technologies ABand Willow Garage was held during the human-robot inter-action (HRI) conference 2012 Among the topics discussedwas the need to design general and multipurpose MRP sys-tems versus application specific MRP systems It was arguedthat the features interface and product ID (appearance)

are highly domain dependent and thus platforms should betailored towards their intended use

An important aspect in MRP system development is tomeasure the added value of the communication for userswhen assessingMRP systems In some cases there is an addedvalue for the pilot user (eg a remote worker attending a staffmeeting) while in others there is a higher value for the localuser (eg a sick student being visited by a teacher)

A number of factors need to be considered in thedevelopment of the MRP systems including legal issues (whois responsible in case of accidents) and responsibilities Ashealth organizations can acquireMRP systems as part of theircare processes it will also be a challenge to overcome initialskepticism when introducing new technologies Includinghealth care professionals in the development process couldbe one way to overcome this issue It was suggested in [126]that 2012 would be a milestone for MRP systems Theyhypothesized that there would be hundreds of MRP systemsin office environments In fact a number of newMRP systemshave been presented during 2012 While the goal of hundredsof robots deployed in office environments is not unrealistic ithas been suggested by Goldberg in [127] that key bottlenecksfor the development ofMRP systems are (1) internet andWiFireliability and (2) the cost for acquiring units that need to belowered

Regardless of the market opportunities evaluation meth-ods of MRP systems will be of growing interest as devices areintroduced to new application areas Further understandingthe requirements for successful interaction via embodimentwill be central when guiding the technical development of thephysical platform as well as its interfaces Issues such as semi-autonomy modularization of components and accessibilityof interfaces will become more increasingly important

Acknowledgment

This work has been supported by the EU under the AmbientAssisted Living Joint Program-EXCITE Project (AAL-2009-2-125)

References

[1] M Minsky Telepresence OMNI Magazine 1980[2] J M Beer and L Takayama ldquoMobile remote presence systems

for older adults acceptance benefits and concernsrdquo in Proceed-ings of the 6th ACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI rsquo11) pp 19ndash26 March 2011

[3] M K Lee and L Takayama ldquoldquoNow I have a bodyrdquo uses andsocial norms for mobile remote presence in the workplacerdquoin Proceedings of the 29th Annual CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI rsquo11) pp 33ndash42 May 2011

[4] ExCITE Project ldquoExCITErdquo August 2012 httpwwwexcite-projecteu

[5] Social Robotic Telepresence ldquoHRI 2011 Workshoprdquo August2012 httpaassorusesimalihri2011ws

[6] Social Robotic Telepresence ldquoRo-Man 2012Workshoprdquo August2012 httpaassorusesimalisrt2012

[7] E Paulos and J Canny ldquoDesigning personal tele-embodimentrdquoin Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Roboticsand Automation (ICRA rsquo98) pp 3173ndash3178 May 1998


[8] E Paulos and J Canny ldquoSocial tele-embodiment understand-ing presencerdquoAutonomous Robots vol 11 no 1 pp 87ndash95 2001

[9] GiraffTechnologies AB ldquoGiraffrdquo August 2012 httpwwwgirafforg

[10] Anybots ldquoQBrdquo August 2012 httpanybotscom[11] M Gibstein ldquoCES coverage anybots QB telepresence robot

hands onrdquo Tech Tracker Tracking Todayrsquos Tech January 12 2011httptechtrackrcom20110112ces-coverage-anybots-qb-tel-epresence-robot-hands-on

[12] Willow Garage ldquoTexairdquo August 2012 httpwwwwillowgaragecompagestexai

[13] ROSorg ldquoROSrdquo August 2012 httprosorg[14] Suitable Technologies ldquoSuitable Technologiesrdquo August 2012

httpsuitabletechcom[15] VGo Communications ldquoVGordquo August 2012 httpwwwvgo

com[16] Ryerson University ldquoPEBBLESrdquo August 2012 httpwwwryer-

soncapebbles[17] K M Tsui M Desai H A Yanco and C Uhlik ldquoExploring

use cases for telepresence robotsrdquo in Proceedings of the 6thACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interac-tion (HRI rsquo11) pp 11ndash18 March 2011

[18] VGoCommunications ldquoVGoUserGuide v 1 5 0rdquo August 2012httpwwwvgocomcomsitesdefaultfilesvgo user guidev150pdf

[19] Mantaro ldquoMantaroBotrdquo August 2012 httpmantarobotcom[20] Double ldquoDouble Roboticsrdquo December 2012 httpwwwdou-

bleroboticscom[21] mObi ldquoBossa Nova Roboticsrdquo December 2012 httpwww

bnroboticscommobi[22] Gostai ldquoJazz Connectrdquo August 2012 httpgostaicom[23] Urbiforgeorg ldquoUrbiForgerdquo December 2012 httpwwwurbi-

forgeorg[24] iRobot Corporation ldquoiRobot Avardquo August 2012 httpwww

irobotcomava[25] 9thSense ldquoTelo and Helordquo August 2012 http9thsensecom[26] InTouchHealth ldquoRP-7rdquo August 2012 httpintouchhealthcom[27] InTouch Health ldquoFAQ RP-7rdquo August 2012 httpwww

intouchhealthcomITHFAQspdf[28] S O Adalgeirsson and C Breazeal ldquoMeBot a robotic platform

for socially embodied presencerdquo in Proceedings of the 5thACMIEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interac-tion (HRI rsquo10) pp 15ndash22 Osaka Japan March 2010

[29] D Sakamoto T Kanda T Ono H Ishiguro and N HagitaldquoAndroid as a telecommunication medium with a human-like presencerdquo in Proceedings of the ACMIEEE Conference onHuman-Robot Interaction (HRI rsquo07) pp 193ndash200 March 2007

[30] K Ogawa S Nishio K Koda G Balistreri T Watanabe andH Ishiguro ldquoExploring the natural reaction of young and agedperson with Telenoid in a real worldrdquo Journal of AdvancedComputational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics vol 15no 5 pp 592ndash597 2011

[31] R Yamazaki S Nishio K Ogawa et al ldquoHow does telenoidaffect the communication between children in classroom set-tingrdquo in Proceedings of the 30th Annual CHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems (CHI rsquo12) pp 351ndash366May 2012

[32] H Tobita S Maruyama and T Kuji ldquoFloating avatar telepres-ence system using blimps for communication and entertain-mentrdquo in Proceedings of the 29th Annual CHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI rsquo11) pp 541ndash550May 2011

[33] J M Lu C Lu Y Chen J Wang and Y Hsu ldquoTricminimdasha telepresence robot towards enriched quality of life of theelderlyrdquo in Proceedings of the Asia Pacific eCare and TeleCareCongress 2011

[34] A Helal and B Abdulrazak ldquoTecarob tele-care using telepres-ence and robotic technology for assisting people with specialneedsrdquo International Journal of ARM vol 7 no 3 pp 46ndash532006

[35] R S Fish R Kraut and R W Root ldquoEvaluating video as atechnology for informal communicationrdquo in Proceedings of the10th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems (CHI rsquo92) pp 37ndash48 1992

[36] P J Hinds and M Mortensen ldquoUnderstanding conflict in geo-graphically distributed teams the moderating effects of sharedidentity shared context and spontaneous communicationrdquoOrganization Science vol 16 no 3 pp 290ndash307 2005

[37] S Wjittaker D Frohlich and O Daly-Jones ldquoInformal work-place communication what is ti like and howmight we supportitrdquo in Proceedings of the 12th Annual CHI Conference onHumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI rsquo94) pp 131ndash137 April 1994

[38] N P Jouppi ldquoFirst steps towards mutually-immersive mobiletelepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the 8th Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work (CSCW rsquo02) pp 354ndash363 Novem-ber 2002

[39] N P Jouppi S Iyer S Thomas and A Slayden ldquoBiRealitymutually-lmmersive Telepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the 12thACM International Conference on Multimedia pp 860ndash867October 2004

[40] N P Jouppi and S Thomas ldquoTelepresence systems with auto-matic preservation of user head height local rotation andremote translationrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEE InternationalConference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA rsquo05) pp 62ndash68April 2005

[41] M Desai K M Tsui H A Yanco and C Uhlik ldquoEssentialfeatures of telepresence robotsrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEEInternational Conference on Technologies for Practical RobotApplications (TePRA rsquo11) pp 15ndash20 April 2011

[42] E Guizzo ldquoWhenmyAvatar went to workrdquo IEEE Spectrum vol47 no 9 pp 26ndash50 2010

[43] L Takayama and J Go ldquoMixing metaphors in mobile remotepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Sup-ported Cooperative Work (CSCW rsquo12) pp 495ndash504 2012

[44] A Paepcke B Soto L Takayama F Koenig and B GassendldquoYelling in the hall using sidetone to address a problemwith mobile remote presence systemsrdquo in Proceedings of theSymposium on User Interface Software and Technology pp 107ndash116 2011

[45] T Mizumoto K Nakadai T Yoshida et al ldquoDesign andimplementation of selectable sound separation on the Texaitelepresence system using harkrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEEInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRArsquo11) pp 2130ndash2137 2011

[46] L M Ellison M Nguyen M D Fabrizio A Soh SPermpongkosol and L R Kavoussi ldquoPostoperative robotictelerounding a multicenter randomized assessment of patientoutcomes and satisfactionrdquo Archives of Surgery vol 142 no 12pp 1177ndash1181 2007

[47] LM Ellison PA Pinto F Kim et al ldquoTelerounding andpatientsatisfaction after surgeryrdquo Journal of the American College ofSurgeons vol 199 no 4 pp 523ndash530 2004


[48] A Gandsas M ParekhMM Bleech and D A Tong ldquoRobotictelepresence profit analysis in reducing length of stay afterlaparoscopic gastric bypassrdquo Journal of the American College ofSurgeons vol 205 no 1 pp 72ndash77 2007

[49] Z J Daruwalla D R Collins and D P Moore ldquoldquoOrthobotto your stationrdquo The application of the remote presencerobotic system in orthopaedic surgery in Ireland a pilot studyon patient and nursing staff satisfactionrdquo Journal of RoboticSurgery vol 4 no 3 pp 177ndash182 2010

[50] J B Petelin M E Nelson and J Goodman ldquoDeployment andearly experience with remote-presence patient care in a com-munity hospitalrdquo Surgical Endoscopy and Other InterventionalTechniques vol 21 no 1 pp 53ndash56 2007

[51] P M Vespa ldquoMultimodality monitoring and telemonitoring inneurocritical care from microdialysis to robotic telepresencerdquoCurrent Opinion in Critical Care vol 11 no 2 pp 133ndash138 2005

[52] P Vespa ldquoRobotic telepresence in the intensive care unitrdquoCritical Care vol 9 no 4 pp 319ndash320 2005

[53] P M Vespa C Miller X Hu V Nenov F Buxey and NA Martin ldquoIntensive care unit robotic telepresence facilitatesrapid physician response to unstable patients anddecreased costin neurointensive carerdquo Surgical Neurology vol 67 no 4 pp331ndash337 2007

[54] Y Wang F Lai and P Vespa ldquoEnabling technologies facilitatenew healthcare delivery models for acute strokerdquo Stroke vol 41no 6 pp 1076ndash1078 2010

[55] K K Chung KW Grathwohl R K Poropatich S EWolf andJ B Holcomb ldquoRobotic telepresence past present and futurerdquoJournal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia vol 21 no 4pp 593ndash596 2007

[56] J F Sucher S R Todd S L Jones T Throckmorton KL Turner and F A Moore ldquoRobotic telepresence a help-ful adjunct that is viewed favorably by critically ill surgicalpatientsrdquo The American Journal of Surgery vol 202 no 6 pp843ndash847 2011

[57] C D Smith and J E Skandalakis ldquoRemote presence proctoringby using a wireless remote-control videoconferencing systemrdquoSurgical Innovation vol 12 no 2 pp 139ndash143 2005

[58] R Agarwal A W Levinson M Allaf D Markov A Nasonand L M Su ldquoThe roboConsultant telementoring and remotepresence in the operating room during minimally invasiveurologic surgeries using a novel mobile robotic interfacerdquoUrology vol 70 no 5 pp 970ndash974 2007

[59] M Iftikhar M J Majid M Muralindran G Thayabaren RVigneswaran and T T K Brendan ldquoOTOROB robot fororthopaedic surgeon roboscope non-interventional medicalrobot for teleroundingrdquo in Proceedings of the 5th Interna-tional Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering(iCBBE rsquo11) May 2011

[60] D Sampsel G Bharwani D Mehling and D Smith ldquoRobots asfaculty student and faculty perceptionsrdquo Clinical Simulation inNursing vol 7 no 6 pp 209ndash218 2011

[61] J Fitzgerald ldquoAfter surgery a robot may be at your sidein quest for efficiency savings hospital is testing at-homemechanical monitorsrdquo Globe Correspondent December 2011httpwwwhighbeamcomdoc1P2-30289248html

[62] S Coradeschi ldquoGIRAFFPLUS combining social interactionand long term monitoring for promoting independent livingrdquoin Proceedings of the Medicinteknikdagarna 2012

[63] D Labonte F Michaud P Boissy H Corriveau R Cloutierand M A Roux ldquoA pilot study on teleoperated mobile robots

in home environmentsrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEERSJ Interna-tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS rsquo06)pp 4466ndash4471 October 2006

[64] F Michaud P Boissy D Labonte et al ldquoRemote assistance incaregiving using telerobotrdquo in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Technology amp Aging 2007

[65] F Michaud P Boissy D Labonte et al ldquoA telementoring robotfor home carerdquo in Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Technology amp Aging A Mihailidis A Boger H Kautz andL Normie Eds vol 21 of Assistive Technology Research Seriespp 138ndash145 IOS Press Amsterdam Netherlands 2008

[66] D Labonte P Boissy and F Michaud ldquoComparative analysisof 3-D robot teleoperation interfaces with novice usersrdquo IEEETransactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics B vol 40 no 5pp 1331ndash1342 2010

[67] F Michaud P Boissy D Labonte et al ldquoExploratory design andevaluation of a homecare teleassistive mobile robotic systemrdquoMechatronics vol 20 no 7 pp 751ndash766 2010

[68] P Boissy S Briere H Corriveau A Grant M Lauria andF Michaud ldquoUsability testing of a mobile robotic system forin-home telerehabilitationrdquo in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society(EMBCrsquo11) pp 1839ndash1842 2011

[69] H EftringThe Useworthiness of Robots for People with PhysicalDisabilities [doctoral dissertation] 1999

[70] S Coradeschi A Loutfi A Kristoffersson et al ldquoTowardsa methodology for longitudinal evaluation of social robotictelepresence for elderlyrdquo in Proceedings of the HRI Workshop onSocial Robotics Telepresence pp 1ndash7 2011

[71] P Deegan R Grupen A Hanson et al ldquoMobile manipulatorsfor assisted living in residential settingsrdquo Autonomous Robotsvol 24 no 2 pp 179ndash192 2008

[72] A Kristoffersson S Coradeschi A Loutfi and K SeverinsonEklundh ldquoTowards evaluation of social robotic telepresencebased onmeasures of social and spatial presencerdquo inProceedingsof the HRI Workshop on Social Robotic Telepresence pp 43ndash492011

[73] A Kristoffersson S Coradeschi A Loutfi and K Severinson-Eklundh ldquoAn Exploratory Study of Health Professionalsrsquo atti-tudes about robotic telepresence technologyrdquo Journal of Tech-nology in Human Services vol 29 no 4 pp 263ndash283 2011

[74] L Tiberio L Padua A R Pellegrino I Aprile G Cortellessaand A Cesta ldquoAssessing the tolerance of a telepresence robot inusers with mild cognitive impairmentmdasha protocol for studyinguserrsquos physiological responserdquo in Proceedings of the HRI Work-shop on Social Robotic Telepresence pp 23ndash28 2011

[75] A Kristoffersson K Severinson Eklundh and A Loutfi ldquoMea-suring the quality of interaction inmobile robotic telepresence apilotrsquos perspectiverdquo International Journal of Social Robotics vol5 no 1 pp 89ndash101 2013

[76] A Kristoffersson K Severinson Eklundh and A LoutfildquoTowards measurement of interaction quality in social robotictelepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the Ro-Man Workshop on SocialRobotic Telepresence pp 24ndash31 2012

[77] Florence ldquoFlorence projectrdquo December 2012 httpwwwflorence-projecteu

[78] GiraffPlus ldquoGiraffPlus projectrdquo December 2012 httpgiraff-pluseu

[79] DN ldquoRoboten Stepanmdashklassens ljusrdquo January 21 2011 httpwwwdnsenyhetervarldenroboten-stepanndashklassens-ljus


[80] R Bloss ldquoHigh school student goes to class roboticallyrdquo Indus-trial Robot vol 38 no 5 pp 465ndash468 2011

[81] Cambio ldquoRobot helps sick teen attend high schoolrdquo January25 2011 httpwwwcambiocom20110125robot-helps-sick-teen-attend-high-school

[82] Singularityhub ldquoTexas students attends school as a robotmdashasign of things to comerdquo February 2 2011 httpsingularityhubcom20110202texas-student-attends-school-as-a-robot-a-robot-a-sign-of-things-to-come-video

[83] E Bridgeman and N C Bridgeman ldquoA future for robotsin schools fact of fantasyrdquo New Zealand Journal of AppliedComputing and Information Technology vol 12 no 1 2008

[84] D I Fels J K Waalen S Zhai and P L Weiss ldquoTelepresenceunder exceptional circumstances enriching the connection toschool for sick childrenrdquo in Proceedings of the InternationalConference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT rsquo01)pp 617ndash624 2001

[85] A Cheetham C Young and D I Fels ldquoInterface developmentfor a childrsquos video conferencing robotrdquo in Proceedings of theIEA2000HFES2000 Congress vol 1 pp 380ndash383 2000

[86] D I Fels and P L Weiss ldquoToward determining an attention-getting device for improving interaction during video-mediatedcommunicationrdquo Computers in Human Behavior vol 16 no 2pp 189ndash198 2000

[87] J Yeung and D I Fels ldquoA remote telepresence system for highschool classroomsrdquo in Proceedings of the Canadian Conferenceon Electrical and Computer Engineering pp 1447ndash1450 May2005

[88] Maastricht University ldquoSwarmlab robots agents amp interactionrdquoAugust 2012 httpswarmlabunimaasnl

[89] D Schneider ldquoI office workerrdquo IEEE Spectrum vol 47 no 10pp 20ndash21 2010

[90] N Karnad and V Isler ldquoA multi-robot system for unconfinedvideo-conferencingrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEE InternationalConference on Robotics andAutomation (ICRA rsquo10) pp 356ndash361May 2010

[91] D Lazewatsky and W Smart ldquoAn inexpensive robot platformfor teleoperation and experimentationrdquo in Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRArsquo11) pp 1211ndash1216 2011

[92] D Sirkin G Venolia J Tang et al ldquoMotion and attention in akinetic videoconferencing proxyrdquo in Proceedings of the Interna-tional Conference onHuman-Computer Interaction (INTERACTrsquo11) pp 162ndash180 2011

[93] International Society for Presence Research ldquoThe concept ofpresence explication statementrdquo 2000 httpisprinfo

[94] HNakanishi YMurakamiDNogami andH Ishiguro ldquoMini-mummovement matters impact of robot-mounted cameras onsocial telepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the ACM Conference onComputer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW rsquo08) pp 303ndash312 November 2008

[95] H Nakanishi K Kato and H Ishiguro ldquoZoom cameras andmovable displays enhance social telepresencerdquo in Proceedingsof the 29th Annual CHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems (CHI rsquo11) pp 63ndash72 May 2011

[96] M Lombard T B Ditton and L Weinstein ldquoMeasuringpresence the temple presence inventoryrdquo in Proceedings of the12th Annual International Workshop on Presence 2009

[97] F Biocca and C Harms ldquoNetworked minds social presenceinventory (Scales only Version 12)rdquo December 2012 httpcogprintsorg674212002 netminds scalespdf

[98] D Sirkin and W Ju ldquoCommunicating meaning and team rolethrough gesturing robotsrdquo in Proceedings of RSS Workshopon Human-Robot Interaction Perspectives and Contributions toRobotics from the Human Sciences 2011

[99] J J Cabibihan W C So S Saj S and Z Zhang ldquoTeleroboticpointing gestures shape human spatial cognitionrdquo InternationalJournal of Social Robotics vol 4 no 3 pp 263ndash272 2012

[100] I Rae L Takayama and BMutlu ldquoOne of the gang supportingin-group behavior for embodied mediated communicationrdquoin Proceedings of the 30th Annual CHI Conference on HumanFactors in Computing Systems (CHI rsquo12) pp 3091ndash3100 May2012

[101] K M Tsui M Desai and H A Yanco ldquoTowards measuringthe quality of interaction communication through telepresencerobotsrdquo in Proceedings of the Performance Metrics for IntelligentSystems 2012

[102] T Nomura T Suzuki T Kanda and K Kato ldquoMeasurement ofnegative attitudes towards robotsrdquo Interaction Studies vol 7 no3 pp 437ndash454 2006

[103] K M Tsui M Desai H A Yanco H Cramer and NKemper ldquoMeasuring attitudes towards telepresence robotsrdquoInternational Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems vol 16no 2 pp 113ndash123 2011

[104] T vanOosterhout andAVisser ldquoA visualmethod for proxemicsmeasurementsrdquo in Proceedings of the Workshop on Metrics forHuman-Robot Interaction pp 61ndash68 2008

[105] H Kuzuoka Y Furusawa N Kobayashi and K YamazakildquoEffect of displaying a remote operatorrsquos face on a mediarobotrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conference on ControlAutomation and Systems (ICCAS rsquo07) pp 745ndash748 October2007

[106] LPR ldquoLaboratory for perceptual roboticsrdquo August 2012httpwww-roboticscsumasseduindexphpRobotsRobots

[107] K M Tsui and H A Yanco ldquoAssistive rehabilitation andsurgical robots from the perspective of medical and healthcareprofessionalsrdquo in Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on HumanImplications of Human-Robot Interaction pp 34ndash39 July 2007

[108] H J Rogove D McArthur B M Demaerschalk and P MVespa ldquoBarriers to telemedicine survey of current users inacute care unitsrdquo Telemedicine and e-Health vol 18 no 1 pp43ndash53 2012

[109] D B Baker R Zhou and D Song ldquoDesign and proto-typing of an economical teleoperations test-bed for humanfactors research cost resource requirements and capabilityassessmentrdquo in Proceedings of the International Conference onComputers and Industrial Engineering pp 526ndash529 2005

[110] D J Bruemmer D A Few M C Walton et al ldquoldquoTurn off thetelevisionrdquo real-world robotic exploration experiments with avirtual 3-D displayrdquo in Proceedings of the 38th Annual HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences p 296 January2005

[111] J L Drury J Scholtz and H Yanco ldquoAwareness in humanrobot interactionsrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEE InternationalConference on SystemsMan and Cybernetics pp 568ndash573 2003

[112] B Keyes R Casey H A Yanco B A Maxwell and Y GeorgievldquoCamera placement and multi-camera fusion for remote robotoperationrdquo in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposiumon Safety Security and Rescue Robotics 2006

[113] B Ricks C W Nielsen and M A Goodrich ldquoEcologicaldisplays for robot interaction a new perspectiverdquo in Proceedingsof the IEEERSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robotsand Systems (IROS rsquo04) pp 2855ndash2860 October 2004


[114] T Ito ldquoHand gesture-based manipulation of a personalizedavatar robot in remote communicationrdquo in Proceedings ofHCII International Conference on Human Interface and theManagement of Information pp 425ndash434 2011

[115] L Takayama E Marder-Eppstein H Harris and J BeerldquoAssisted driving of a mobile remote presence system Systemdesign and controlled user evaluationrdquo in Proceedings of theInternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRArsquo11) pp 1883ndash1889 2011

[116] J Gonzalez-Jimenez C Galindo and J R Ruiz-SarmientoldquoTechnical improvements of the giraff telepresence robot basedon usersrsquo evaluationrdquo in Proceedings of the 21st IEEE Interna-tional Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communi-cation (Ro-Man rsquo12) September 2012

[117] S G Hart ldquoNASA-task load index (NASA-TLX) 20 years laterrdquoin Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Human Factorsand Ergonomics Society (HFES rsquo06) pp 904ndash908 October 2006

[118] A M Lund ldquoMeasuring usability with the USE questionnairerdquoSTC Usability SIG Newsletter vol 8 no 2 2001

[119] A Kiselev and A Loutfi ldquoUsing a mental workload index asa measure of usability of a user interface for social robotictelepresencerdquo in Proceedings of the Ro-Man Workshop on SocialRobotic Telepresence pp 3ndash6 2012

[120] L Riano C Burbridge and T M McGinnity ldquoA study ofenhanced robot autonomy in telepresencerdquo in Proceedings of theArtificial Intelligence and Cognitive Systems 2011

[121] B G Witmer and M J Singer ldquoMeasuring presence in virtualenvironments a presence questionnairerdquo Presence vol 7 no 3pp 225ndash240 1998

[122] N P Jouppi S Iyer W Mack S Thomas and A SlaydenldquoA first generation mutually-immersive mobile telepresencesurrogate with automatic backtrackingrdquo in Proceedings of theIEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation(ICRA rsquo04) pp 1670ndash1675 May 2004

[123] ITU-T Recommendations ldquoP 805 (042007)mdashSubjective eval-uation of conversational qualityrdquo April 2007 httpwwwituintITU-Trecommendationsrecaspxrec=9066

[124] ITU-T Recommendations ldquoP 910 (042008)mdashsubjective videoquality assessment methods for multimedia applicationsrdquo April2008 httpwwwituintITU-Trecommendationsrecaspxrec=9317

[125] ITU-T Recommendations ldquoJ247 (082008)mdashobjective percep-tual multimedia video quality measurement in the presenceof a full referencerdquo August 2008 httpwwwituintITU-Trecommendationsrecaspxrec=9497amplang=en

[126] E Guizzo and T Deyle ldquoRobotics Trends for 2012rdquo August2012 httpspectrumieeeorgautomatonroboticsrobotics-hardwarerobotics-trends-for-2012

[127] E Guizzo ldquoTelerobots [turning poing]rdquo IEEE Robotics andAutomation Magazine vol 18 no 1 2011

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Computer Games Technology

International Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Distributed Sensor Networks


Advances in

FuzzySystems

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014


ReconfigurableComputing

Hindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing

thinspAdvancesthinspinthinsp

Artificial Intelligence

HindawithinspPublishingthinspCorporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volumethinsp2014

Advances inSoftware EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Journal of

Computer Networks and Communications


Hindawi Publishing Corporation

httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging


ArtificialNeural Systems

Advances in


RoboticsJournal of



Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience

Industrial EngineeringJournal of


Modelling amp Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation httpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Human-ComputerInteraction

Advances in

Computer EngineeringAdvances in



environment where the robot is located and interactwith other personsA Local user is the user that is being situated at thesame physical location as the robot Local users arefree to move around while interacting with the pilotuser who is visiting them via the robotLocal environment is the environment in which therobot and the local user are situated

The paper is organized as follows Section 2 outlines a listof MRP systems which are later referred to in the paper InSection 2 focus is placed solely on the MRP systemsrsquo designand technical specifications Section 3 contextualizes thesesystems by dividing them into a number of application areaswhere focus is placed on specific design choices that aredirected towards the application needs Section 4 providesan overview of the various methods used when evaluatingMRP systems including both technical evaluations and userfeedback Section 5 outlines a number of design implicationsto consider for developers of future MRP systems based onthe results of the evaluations and experiences from usingsystems in the different application areas Finally Section 6provides a future outlook of the field of MRP systems

2 MRP Systems Design

MRP systems vary in design and functionality often depend-ing directly on their intended use and application In thissection we briefly describe the hardware and software spec-ification of the most common MRP systems found in theliterature (see Table 1) Although some of the manufacturersof the robots provide public price tags the field is undergoingrapid expansion The price tags are therefore expected tochange over time

Among the first of the MRP systems was PRoP [7 8]see Figure 1(a)The basic construction of PRoP consisted of amobile robotic base an LCD screen camera microphone arobot handarm hardware with a 2 DOF pointer and a laserpointer attached to its tip for simple gesturing As describedin [8] pilots have the ability to move the robot as well aszoom pan and tilt the head For navigation a keyboard anda joystick are needed The goal with PRoP was to allow thepilot to fully immerse in real remote spaces and a number ofservices such as a visual scrapbook logging interactions andmovements were envisioned [8]

Since ProP many similar types of MRP systems haveemerged varying only slightly in functionality and designGiraff [9] see Figure 1(b) is a human-height MRP systemIt comes with a 14110158401015840 tiltable standing screen mounted on anonadjustable pole attached to a mobile base The web camprovides the pilot who connects from a PC with a wide-angle view of the local environment The construction anddesign of Giraff is highly motivated by its intended use ina home environment Thus the Giraff robot with its heavybase can clear thresholds and obstacles with minimum riskof tipping Driving the robot can be done by using a mouseor touchpad The approximate tentative trajectory is drawnas a red line on a video panel When the left mouse button is

pressed and held the line transitions to green and the robotstarts moving The robotrsquos direction and speed are controlledby the orientation and length of the line respectively Therobotrsquos head tilt can be adjusted at any point during drivingMotivated again by its application for home use Giraff facesthe wall when positioned in the docking station Further adatabase is used to handle access rights between pilots androbots In the normal usage the local user has to respond tothe ldquocallsrdquo but an emergency call access level exists

QB [10] see Figure 1(c) has a manually adjustable heightand its base has two dynamically balancing wheels comparedto the more common four wheels for MRP systems The QBcomes with two cameras one five megapixel nontilt frontfacing camera and one down facing camera for navigationDeictic referencing is done with a laser pointer The systemcan be piloted from any browser onWindows andMacintosh[11] The device is suited for office environments

Texai has an alpha prototype [12] see Figure 1(d) witha 1910158401015840 touch screen and a pan-tilt wide-angle web cameramounted on a mobile base equipped with a bumper Ithas two laser-range finders Fully charged the Texai canrun for eight hours It leverages on the open source robotoperative software (ROS) [13] and commercially availablevideo conferencing software To preserve privacy the screenis black when no pilot is using the MRP system Whilethe research on Texai continues a new company SuitableTechnologies [14] has been created in order to take theproduct to the market During the fall of 2012 the companyreleased the new commercial human-height MRP systemcalled Beam see Figure 1(e)The system features include a 1710158401015840screen a six-microphone array enabling pilot users to localizedirections of sound two wide-angle HD cameras (one frontfacing and one down facing) and digital zoom The batterytime is reported to be long enough to last a full workingday The Beam docks backwards and LEDs are used to showit is docked The system can be piloted from Windows andMacintosh

VGo [15] see Figure 1(f) can be piloted from bothWindows andMacintoshThenavigation is done by ldquoclick andgordquo buttons and arrow keys The pilot can take snapshots ofthe local environment as well as zoom up to 5 times in thevideoThe VGO can be used on Verizon 4G LTE andWiFi Ithas a fixed height and comes with two battery options 6 or 12hours

PEBBLES [16] see Figure 1(g) has been designed to allowyoung hospitalized children to attend school embodied in aMRP system and has two versions one for elementary schooland one for high school students (where the latter is smallerin order to adjust to the rotary schedule typical for highschool) The high school version also supports two screensallowing for participation in group activities one screen forcommunication and one for desktop- and file sharing Bothplatforms are characterized by the typical wheeled roboticdevice with a simple arm-like attachment which enables thepilot user to perform a gesture similar to a hand raise Panand tilt units are also present on the head of the robot

A current trend is the use of smartphone technologyandor tablets as integral components in the MRP systemdesign MantaroBot Classic and TeleMe [19] see Figures 1(h)




area


references















[22 23]



[24]


available [25]








(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

(o) (p) (q) (r)















(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)













































































6 Future Outlook






Acknowledgment


References










































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in






area


references















[22 23]



[24]


available [25]








(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

(o) (p) (q) (r)















(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)













































































6 Future Outlook






Acknowledgment


References










































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in




(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) (m) (n)

(o) (p) (q) (r)















(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)













































































6 Future Outlook






Acknowledgment


References










































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in












(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)













































































6 Future Outlook






Acknowledgment


References










































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in






































































6 Future Outlook






Acknowledgment


References










































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in





































































































































Advances in

FuzzySystems


Volume 2014












Journal of

Journal of





Advances in

Multimedia


Biomedical Imaging



Advances in


RoboticsJournal of










Advances in



review article a review of mobile robotic telepresence

Documents