The Challenge of True Presence: Exploring Telepresence Technologies

Telepresence is a sensation of being elsewhere, the state of being present in a remote location through the use of technology. But, what does it mean “being present”? It could mean being fully engaged, focused, and mindful in a particular moment, paying attention to our surroundings and interactions. Do we feel like that when we use telepresence technologies? I think we have come a long way but it is still very hard to feel fully present when using current technologies.

What are these current technologies? Video conferencing with platforms like Zoom, immersive technologies like virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR), telepresence robots, video communication devices, and remote control systems to operate different systems, like drones.

Here, I will talk about video communication devices and telepresence robots because that is what interests me and what I have tried multiple times. But I have to say that it is super exciting to imagine what the future will bring in terms of new telepresence technologies, especially immersive technologies like virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) with Meta’s Pixel Codec Avatars.

Communicating with my family with the Portal

Portal is a device developed by Meta (apparently they are not selling it anymore) that has technology that allows the cameras to identify individuals and track their movements in the room. There’s a Portal in my parents’ place. They put it at the bar, which faces the living room where everyone sits.

This device is supposed to reduce background noise and improve the caller's voice during video calls, but when I use the Portal with my family and everyone is sitting together and having a normal group interaction I cannot understand, hear well, or participate as if I was there because they don’t hear me or it’s just not easy to engage in a group conversation when you can’t use eye gaze or body language for turn-taking. In my opinion, the next step in the development of these technologies is to find a way to facilitate turn-taking because if I don't feel I can participate naturally in the conversation it is really hard to have the sensation of being present.

I asked my dad what is the added value of this device for him and he said it is just more comfortable to use it instead of the mobile phone when everyone is sitting together because they can all see me clearly. So in the end, it brings more benefits to them, as local interactants, than to me, as a remote user. Does it bring me the sensation of “being present”? Not really. Do they feel that I am more present in a family gathering as compared to when they call me with the mobile phone? Maybe yes.

Mobile telepresence robot + Zoom in a hybrid workshop

I recently presented a paper and participated in a hybrid workshop about Emerging Telepresence Technologies for Hybrid Meetings as part of the ACM Conference On Computer-Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing, in Minneapolis, USA, and online. It was very interesting to see how a hybrid format unfolded with people all over the world and the dynamics of the interactions.

How was my experience presenting with the mobile telepresence robot (I used one called Double 3) at the conference? It did not work as expected. I had the Zoom call open and shared my screen with the PowerPoint file, and the link with the platform to operate the robot. It was hard to coordinate the operation of both platforms and focus on the presentation itself. The mix of Zoom + the robot was not good. When connecting through the robot I did not feel fully present. I also tried the Kubi, which, compared to the Portal, allows you to move the screen so you can “turn your head” sideways. My conclusion: we need an intelligent integration of technologies that allows us to focus on what we are saying and seeing and not on the operation of the devices.

Who is benefitting more from presenting at a conference with telepresence robots? I think it might be more beneficial for the locals. They do have a different sensation of the person being present thanks to the embodiment of the robot. The benefit for me is mobility in the local setting, but when you are presenting something in this context you normally don’t expect to move much. Unless it is a dynamic presentation in which the robot can move in a hallway and engage the audience, this was not the case.

Mobile telepresence robots in healthcare

Last but not least, I’ve been studying GoBe from Blue Ocean Robotics in healthcare settings. In this case, I think mobile telepresence robots add value when there is a specific need to move around while observing something. For example, medical rounds when the resident checks the patients together with the doctor who is connected to the robot, or family members visiting isolated patients or nursing home residents. In these use cases, the benefit is clear for the remote users because they need mobility and a better visual field than the one they can have with a mobile phone. So I think human interactions in healthcare shouldn’t be substituted with telepresence technologies for the comfort of the remote clinician, it has to be a very clear need that will benefit from such technologies.

To sum up, we need to understand the specific situations in which a particular telepresence technology adds value and for whom. Today, the technologies are not so advanced that both interactants (local and remote users) have the feeling of being present, in my opinion. Which interactant is more important? Local or remote users? Is it important for me to feel completely immersed? Or is it more important that the local interactant feels that I am there? Depends on the situation.