View
2.706
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
CHI07 Presentation on the MultiView Project and Trust. Presented in San Jose. Best Paper Award Winner. David Nguyen and John Canny
Citation preview
BERKELEY INSTITUTE OF DESIGNMultiView: Improving
Trust in Group Video
Conferencing through Spatial
Faithfulness
David NguyenJohn CannyUC Berkeley
ACM SIGCHI 2007San Jose, CAApril 28 – May 3
Perspective Invariance
Perspective Invariance
Perspective InvarianceMona Lisa
(the painting)
Your viewingposition
YourPerspective/
Leonardo DaVinci’sPerspective
21 3
CL R
21 3
Perspective Invariance andGroup Video Conferencing
21 3
21 3
21 3
CL R
21 3
Perspective Invariance andGroup Video Conferencing
21 3
21 3
The Apprentice…
Donald Accidentally Fires Entire Staff
Video
Conference
System to
BlameYou’re
Fired!
Effects of Video Conferencing
• Turn Taking(Vertegaal et al., 2000)
• Cooperation(Bradner and Mark, 2002)
• Persuasion (Bradner and Mark, 2002)
• Deception (Bradner and Mark, 2002)
• Trust(Bos et al., 2002)
Research Question
How do spatial distortions affect trust formation between two meeting groups?
Before that, we need a spatially faithful video conferencing system.
Our Approach
Our Approach
Gen 1
Gen 2
Gen 3
Gen 4
Our Approach
MultiView: Spatially Faithful Group Video Conferencing
Cameras
Projectors
MultiViewDisplay
1 32
L RC
1 32
1 32
1 32
1 32
L RC
1 32
1 32
1 32
Research Question
How do spatial distortions affect trust formation between
two meeting groups?
Trust Measure: DayTrader (Bos et al, 2002)
• Daytrader is a measure of trust.
• Daytrader is an Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) Game with Noise
• There were >30 rounds. In each round, groups were given 60 credits
• They chose how much to invest cooperatively and how much to keep individually
• Cooperative investments had a fluctuating market (average 50%) and split evenly, regardless of initial cooperative investment by each team (teams only knew their earnings)
• Every 5 rounds, a bonus is split between the two teams. The higher a team’s earning, the bigger their share of the bonus
0 60
0
60
A
B
60
10560
909045
45
105
Team A Investment
Tea
m B
In
vest
men
t
Does meeting through standard video conferencing affect trust formation when compared to face-to-face?
Can we improve trust formation patterns by using a spatially faithful video conferencing system such as MultiView?
Experimental Conditions
Face to
Face
MultiView
Standard Video Conferencing
Experimental Design
•N = 169 participantso 110 females, and 59 maleso 156 students (20), 13 staff members (39)o Formed 29 groups of 2 and 37 groups of 3o Groups were randomly formed
Results: Overview
Results: Overall Trust
2600.09 2627.641928.28
Face-to-Face vs. non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05Directional Video Conferencing vs. Non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05
Face-to-Face vs. Directional Video Conferencing, p>0.05
Results: Overall Trust
4.424 4.3883.562
Face-to-Face vs. non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05Directional Video Conferencing vs. Non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05
Face-to-Face vs. Directional Video Conferencing, p>0.05
Results: Overview
Results: Fragile Trust
-1.968 -2.348-4.520
Face-to-Face vs. non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05Directional Video Conferencing vs. Non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05
Face-to-Face vs. Directional Video Conferencing, p>0.05
Ability to Build Trust…… not always good!
Conclusions
Does meeting through standard video conferencing affect trust formation when compared to face-to-face? YES!
Can we improve trust formation patterns by using a spatially faithful video conferencing system such as MultiView? YES!
Acknowledgements
Nathan Bos
Questions?• Developed a spatially faithful video
conferencing system• Extended existing trust measure to support
group-to-group experimentation• Experimentally compared trust formation
patterns between groups meeting face-to-face, through standard video conferencing, and through spatially faithful video conferencing.
• Shown that spatial fidelity plays key role in trust formation between two groups meeting over video conferencing.
Prior Work: (Bos et al, 2002)
Trust Formation and CMC
Face-to-Face
Video
Audio Text
Results: Overall Trust
Results: Delayed Trust
Results: Fragile Trust
Face-to-Face vs. non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05Directional Video Conferencing vs. Non-Directional Video Conferencing, p<0.05
Face-to-Face vs. Directional Video Conferencing, p>0.05
Construction
• Retroreflective LayerReflects image back in direction of source
• Vertical DiffuserDiffuses image vertically to accommodate varying viewing heights
• Antireflective/Antiglare Reduces distracting glares due to glossy surface and front projection setup
MultiView Directional Display
• Big, Bright, High Resolution Display
• Each view is provided by a projector
• The projected image is reflected directly back in the direction of the projector
• The image can be seen at varying heights only behind the projector
0
50
100
150
200
250
-30 -10 10 30
viewing angle (degrees)
illu
min
an
ce
(lu
x)
Illuminance vs. Viewing Angle
0O
α-20O
• JND Power Half Width = 7.5o (15”)
Planned Comparisons
•When doing pair wise comparison you can…o Perform and omnibus ANOVA followed by
pair-wise comparisons technique with proper adjustments
o Or, if you have specific comparisons driven by theory or prior data, you can use Planned Comparisons without any adjustment
Recommended