Eye Contact and Video-Mediated Communication: A Review PDF

Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Displays journal homepage: www.elsev...

Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 journal Eye contact and video-mediated communication: A review Leanne S. Bohannon a,⇑, Andrew M. Herbert b, Jeff B. a Rochester Institute of Technology, 18 Lomb Memorial b Rochester Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, c Rochester Institute of Technology, Carlson Center for d Rochester Institute of Technology, Department of Psychology, a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Available online 23 November 2012 Keywords: Video-conferencing Eye contact Communication Eye-tracking Display Laptop 1. Introduction In the history of human communication, video-conferencing is a relatively new means of correspondence dating from the introduc- tion of the AT&T Picturephone at the New York World’s Fair in 1964. However, the technology has advanced in leaps and bounds in the last 10 years, making videoconferencing available to anyone who can afford a modern laptop computer or a smart- phone. In comparison to email, instant messaging and other elec- tronically mediated communication, video-conferencing did not become commonplace until very recently. It is now standard for laptop computers and tablets to come equipped with a small cam- era mounted above the monitor, Apple’s iPhones feature an appli- cation called FaceTime, Skype (video-conferencing software) has been purchased by Microsoft, and Cisco (a company that special- izes in remote communication) has introduced u mi, a video-con- ferencing system designed for home use. The recent revolution could also be driven in part by an increasingly global economy , family migration patterns, faster network connections, and substantial improvements in video-conferencing technology such as higher-resolution images and larger screens. Regardless of the causes for its growing popularity, like other technology-assisted communication media, video-conferencing reveals important as- pects of human communication that should be considered in the development of new applications afforded by ever-advancing technology. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 585 210 8513. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L.S. Bohannon), esa.rantanen direction. Eye contact is gaze directed at another’s eyes, and mutual eye contact occurs when two people make eye contact simultaneously. When two people are in casual conversation, eye rights reserved. Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 in self-consciousness during those years of development, and in- creases again in adulthood. 2.3. Attention and memory Gaze can be a powerful director of attention. To illustrate this, one study presented participants wearing an eye-tracker with a screen for 1500 ms displaying a ﬁxation point between two squares. Then the ﬁxation point changed color. The color was a cue to the participant to look either to the left or the right. The ﬁxation point disappeared after 150 ms, and then a photo- graph of a person’s face appeared after either 50, 100, or 150 ms. The eyes of the face were looking either to the left, right, or center. The face stayed on the screen for 150 ms. In the trials with the 50 ms interval there were more antisaccades (saccades looking in the opposite direction of the color cue) when the eye direction was incongruent with the color cue. That is, the gaze direction of the face overrode the color cue instructions. This is evidence that our attention tends to follow the gaze of another. Similarly, participants were faster to respond to a target when it was accom- panied by a schematic face gazing in the same direction , pos- sibly indicating that the tendency to follow another’s gaze is reﬂexive in nature. Many illusions and card tricks work in part by misdirecting the gaze of viewers. Participants viewing a trick while being eye-tracked follow the gaze of the person performing the trick, thereby missing critical information that would reveal the trick. The timing of gaze direction effects is consistent with prioritized visual processing of this information. Memory, too, is affected by gaze direction. When presented with a prerecorded sales pitch for a soap product, participants remembered more about the product in the condition where the salesman made eye contact with the camera (the participant) than when he made no eye contact. 2.4. Impression formation of the dorsal Gaze direction can inﬂuence the likeability and attractiveness of a person as perceived by another. When participants in a study [20,21] viewed female faces that made a gaze shift toward them, they rated the faces to be more likeable than when the eyes of the face made an animated shift away from the participant. Males rated female faces that made eye contact as more attractive than female faces whose eyes looked away. Couples that scored higher on a questionnaire test measuring level of romantic love en- gaged in more eye contact than couples that had a lower romantic love score. It also appears that believed eye contact, or what we are told about the level of our own or another’s eye contact can affect our perception of that person. Kleinke et al. had male–female dyads engage in a conversation. After the conversation, the exper- imenter told the participants that the amount of gaze of one of them was either less, about the same as, or more than that of most people. Partners alleged to have made less than average eye con- tact were rated as less attentive. When males were told they gazed less than average at their female partner, they rated her more. The level of eye-contact avoidance in the Japanese culture favorably. Conversely, females who were told they gazed at their male partner more than average rated him more positively. When males were told their female partner gazed an average amount, they rated her as more relaxed. Conversely, when females were told their male partner gazed an average amount they rated him as less relaxed. Males who were told their female partners had less than average gaze rated her as least attractive while females who were told their male partner had more than average gaze rated him least attractive. Both males and females who were told their partner had more than average gaze rated him or her as being more sincere. Thus, regardless of the actual gaze of another Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 179 Gamer and Hecht coined the term ‘‘cone of gaze’’ to refer to the ‘‘range of considerable width wherein a person feels looked at’’ (p. 706). Many studies examining gaze perception used an experimental setup involving pairs of people, one called the looker and the other called the observer [27–32] (see Table 1 for a summary). The looker is a confederate to the experiment and looks at different points on a scale invisible to the observer. The observer then makes some type of judgment about where the looker is looking. These gaze detection studies used different metrics for measuring the just noticeable deviation in gaze; some studies use degrees of visual an- gle and others use centimeters. When converted to degrees of vi- sual angle the just noticeable deviation in gaze varies between 0.73° and 9.3°. This large variation between results is not surpris- ing given the methodological differences in the studies. Thus, it is perhaps not useful to compare results directly to one another but instead to look for patterns; the important information to take from research on gaze direction perception is that (1) people are very sensitive to deviations in gaze from eye contact (2) except,. perhaps to downward gaze and (3) perception of gaze direction stared or did not is inﬂuenced by head orientation. All three of these points are rel- evant to video-conferencing. 3.2. Gaze perception during video-conferencing she typically Some studies on gaze perception focus speciﬁcally on eye con- tact perception and video-conferencing. These studies explore the role of video and parallax on gaze perception. Chen setup a ‘‘recording studio’’ in which a camera was placed behind a hole in the middle of a projector screen. Points were drawn 1° apart on the screen along a horizontal, vertical, and diagonal orientations indicating targets for the looker. The downward direction covered 15° and the other seven lines of points covered a range of 5° each to form a star-like pattern. The observer looked at videos of the looker gazing at the different points in random order. It was the observer’s task to indicate whether the looker was or was not looking at him. Observers were very sensitive to eye contact when the looker gazed up, left, or to the right but less sensitive when the looker gazed below the screen as shown in Table 1. When the looker was looking down, observers were much less sensitive to eye contact; the looker could look as far as 10° away before the observer reported eye contact was lost. One key difference between Chen’s study and a video-conferencing system is that participants in Chen’s study made judgments about images of faces that were taken looking directly into the camera as opposed to from an elevated angle as is the case with video conferencing. Chen suggested that horizontal eye contact sensitivity to gaze deviation might be accurate because, as the eye rotates hori- zontally, the sclera becomes more visible. But as the eye rotates downward it becomes difﬁcult to know if a person is making direct eye contact because less or no sclera can be seen. Chen sug- gests we perceive downward gaze as great as 10° to be eye contact and recommends that in a video-conferencing system the eyes dis- played on the screen should be located approximately 5° below the camera to create the illusion of eye contact. To examine gaze direction perception under video-mediated conditions, Gale and Monk had a looker and observer either sit across from each other with the targets between them, or a vi- deo camera was placed where the observer’s head would have been. In both conditions both the looker and the observer were seated at eye-level with one another. Targets were marked on a vertical line that extended upward to the observer and on a hori- zontal arc such that every point on the arc was the same distance from the looker. Targets were marked such that the looker had to rotate his or her head 2° to look from one to the other. In one 180 Angles Distance Task Gaze sensitivity A 6 cm horizontal span with targets 200 cm O responded ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to the question of The just noticeable deviation was 2.58° or separated by 2.9° whether or not L was looking directly at him about the distance from O’s nose to the edge of her face Targets along a vertical and 122 cm O pointed to where she thought L was looking. The threshold at which O still perceived L to horizontal axis separated by 2° She also said when she thought L was looking be looking at him was: at her 0.73° horizontal and 1.27° vertical for experiment 1 1.34° horizontal for experiment 2 and 2.48° when O’s head was rotated 30° right or left Targets along a horizontal axis 84 cm O indicated on a scale where L was looking by Overestimated where L was looking by spanning 0°, 5°, 10°, 15°, 20° to the pointing with a rod between 50% and 87% left and right When L’s head rotated 30° left of O, O estimated gaze to be 7.7° to the right. When rotated right, estimation was 5.44° to the left When TV was rotated to O’s left, estimation was 1.81° to the left. When rotated right then 4.56° to the right When scale was vertical, estimates were true to scale Targets were separated by 1° 480 cm (O and L O indicated if L was looking at her or not When L gazed up, down, left, or right, L increments downward to 15°. There each sat 240 cm could look at most 1° away from camera before were seven other lines radiating from from camera/ O perceived L was no longer looking and her the center that spanned 5° each and screen) formed a star-like pattern L could look 10° downward from the center L.S. Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 of the camera before O noticed L was no longer looking at her Eyes of both the virtual and real head 100 cm and O moved L’s eyes either toward or away from The cone of gaze was 9.3° at a distance of moved 1° at a time with the aid of 500 cm him until he thought L was looking directly at 100 cm and 8.2° at a distance of 500 cm for the computer software or an electronic him virtual head pointer device, respectively. Eyes could move as far as 10° to the right or left The cone was 8.2° at 100 cm and 3.9° at 500 cm for the real head When L’s head was rotated to right or left 10° the gaze was perceived to be shifted more in the direction of the head rotation than it actually was. The effect was greater for the 100 cm distance than the 500 cm distance Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 181 to study communication because the map task requires informa- tion transfer and reception through spoken dialogue. In the map task, each participant is provided a map with landmarks scattered about it. The two maps contain some similar landmarks but are slightly different. One person is designated to be the instruction gi- ver, and the other person is designated to be the instruction recei- ver. The instruction giver’s map contains a trail. The goal of the task is for the giver to verbally articulate the trail’s path to the receiver who must replicate the trail on his own map. Error in the ﬁnal re- sult can then be measured and provide one measure of success. Boyle et al. evaluated performance and communication efﬁcacy on the map task in two conditions: co-present audio-only and face-to-face. Performance was measured by placing the instruction giver’s map on top of the follower’s map and calculat- ing the difference in the paths (deviation) in square centimeters. While performance did not differ between the two conditions, communication patterns did. Conversation efﬁciency was measured by number of turns, number of words, number of words per turn, number of interrup- tions (and interruption rate), and number of back channel re- sponses (and back channel rate). Conversation pairs who could not see each other took more turns and used more words than those who could see each other. Participants who could not see each other took shorter turns, that is, they spoke fewer words per turn, than did participants who could see each other. Partici- pants who could not see each other while completing the map. When the camera was positioned over the face of the partic- mask interrupted each other twice as often as participants who could see each other. Conversations in which participants could not see each other were longer (as measured in number of words) than conversations in which participants could not see each other, and the interruption rate (percentage of turns containing interrup- tions was higher for the no-visibility condition. A back channel re- little variation when sponse was deﬁned as ‘‘a turn which consisted of an ‘uhuh’ or ‘mhm’’’ (, p. 10). Back channel responses were greater in both number and rate for conversations that enabled visibility than con- versations that did not. Thus, the end product (the path) did not differ as a function of eye contact, but conversational efﬁciency was increased when the pair could see each other. Boyle et al. also examined the instruction follower’s gaze toward the instruction giver. Conversations were videotaped and the transcribed dialogue was marked every time it was estimated the follower looked up and at the giver. When discussing a feature that differed between the two map versions, the instruction fol- lower gazed at the giver more often than when discussing a feature that was the same. Other research examining gaze and turn taking found that people tend to look more at their conversational partner when they are ready to stop talking and let their partner begin speaking. Participants in Boyle et al.’s experiment may have looked at their partner more when discussing incongruent map features because they were trying to elicit verbal explanation from their partner regarding more details about the features. According to Boyle et al.’s measures of conversation efﬁ- ciency, the ability to view one’s conversation partner signiﬁcantly increases the amount of information being conveyed in a shorter amount of time and with fewer words. It can be inferred that inter- ruptions result from some sort of confusion about either whose turn it is or about the task. Back channel responses can be interpreted as a means of communicating understanding and agreement. Doherty-Sneddon et al. distinguished between the surface features and pragmatic function of dialogue by exploring dialogue and gaze under the context of ﬁve communication media – co- present audio, remote audio, face-to-face, video-mediated that enabled eye contact and video-mediated that did not enable eye contact. Like Boyle et al. , Doherty-Sneddon et al. used the map mask as a cooperative task for their participants. Doherty-Sneddon et al. analyzed the conversations between L.S. Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 signiﬁcantly more in the video-conferencing condition that enabled eye contact than in the video-conferencing condition that did not enable eye contact. They also gazed more in the video- conferencing condition that enabled eye contact than in the face-to-face condition of the ﬁrst experiment. 4.2. Trust map task Besides establishing mutual knowledge, other important social interactions take place during communication and can be im- pacted by video-conferencing. Building trust, impression formation and establishing social status are all affected by different forms of mediated communication. To determine the effect of eye contact in video-mediated com- munication on trust, Bekkering created a scenario in which participants indicated the trustworthiness of a message delivered by people in three video-conferencing conditions. Participants were to imagine a scenario in which they had just been denied a job. The person at human resources informed them that the reason they did not get the job might have had something to do with a problem with letters of references. The participants were to imag- ine that they called the two people they had asked to write letters of references to check if letters had been submitted. Participants then listened to messages from the two people - one familiar per- son (their professor) and one unfamiliar person (a minister from a neighboring town) conﬁrming that they did indeed send letters. The messages came in the form of an email, a voicemail, a video in which the person was making eye contact (the camera was eye level with the face), a video in which the camera was placed above the person’s face, and a video in which the camera was placed to the side of the person’s face. Each participant listened to the messages in all their forms (the script was the same for each) and indicated how much they trusted that the person had sent in their letter of reference. Whether or not the person delivering the message was familiar to the participant did not affect perceived trust. When compared to the video that enabled eye contact (center camera), videos that prevented eye contact (side and top camera) resulted in lower perceived trust scores. Trust scores did not differ between voicemail and centered video. Trust was signiﬁcantly better for the centered video than for email. In summary, video- communication that prevents eye contact can reduce trust when compared to video-communication that does. Voicemail enabled just as much trust as the video that created eye contact, perhaps and ‘‘um,’’ false starts, because lack of eye contact cannot be perceived in audio-only communication. were almost double when When participating in games that require group cooperation, participants trust each other more when communicating face- to-face as compared to computer-mediated media. Partici- pants, who played the Daytrader social dilemma game in groups of three, across four media conditions (face-to-face, video-confer- encing, three-way phone conference, and text chat), had to make an investment choice that was either individual in which they were guaranteed two tokens for themselves or as a group in which all players were guaranteed three tokens so long as they all invested. Every ﬁve rounds of the game a bonus of 90 tokens was given to whoever had the most tokens at that point, and participants had the opportunity to discuss and agree upon a strategy for the next ﬁve rounds. If, for the ﬁve rounds preceding the bonus, all players cooperated and invested as a group, the bonus was split three ways. Participants who played the game in the text chat condition made signiﬁcantly fewer tokens from their investments than did groups in the other three conditions. Group investments started high and remained high for the face-to-face condition. As the game progressed, group investments increased for the audio and video conditions. Group investments started low and stayed Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 183 persuaded by a confederate to incorrectly rank order survival equipment when they were communicating over a video-confer- encing setup that did not facilitate selective gaze compared to a video-conferencing setup that did enable selective gaze and via face-to-face communication. Furthermore, when performing a murder mystery-solving task, groups of participants were more likely to communicate unshared information over video- conferencing than face-to-face. A number of factors are likely responsible for the impact of video-conferencing on impression formation over face-to-face interactions. The quality and speed of the video and audio signal can mitigate the transmission of subtle non-verbal communication Furthermore, people may be more self-conscious when talk- ing over video-conferencing (intensiﬁed by being able to see their own image on camera), and may therefore behave differently than they normally do. Additionally, eye contact perception is not accurate in video-conferencing, and the presence or absence of eye contact can affect the impression of personality and emotions is placed per- 5. Solutions to parallax in video-conferencing The role of eye contact in human communication and the impact of the now ‘‘traditional’’ video-conferencing arrangement on perceived eye contact underline the importance of creating the optimal perception of eye contact during video-conferencing. Solutions to the lack of eye contact in video-conferencing are varied and involve hardware and software approaches. Perhaps one of the earliest solutions was the design of the video-tunnel in Doherty-Sneddon, et al.. This comprises a half-silvered mirror placed at a 45° angle from a screen that is lying ﬂat on the surface in front of the person communicating. The image of the screen (and thus the other person’s face) is reﬂected onto the mirror. A camera (or in some cases multiple cameras) is placed behind the mirror so that the person is both looking at the image of the eyes of the other and at the same time looking directly into the camera. This creates the appearance of eye contact. Such a setup can be limiting in terms of screen size and sometimes the person is required to place his head in a chin rest to maintain eye contact. A modern-day attempt to adapt the video-tunnel to today’s existing technology involves a miniature video tunnel that ﬁts over small monitor-mounted web cameras. Similar in concept to the video-tunnel is embedding a camera in the display. Tapia et al. embedded a camera (1.5 mm in diam- eter) onto a surface and projected the other’s face onto that surface. The thought This enables the speaker to look at both the image of the other person and the camera, creating eye contact. This is not a viable solu- tion for current laptops and monitors in commercial production. Ott et al. used a combination of multiple cameras and software to create eye contact. A camera was placed both above and below the screen; the top camera tilted slightly downward and the bottom camera tilted slightly upward. Together these cameras captured the same person from two different viewpoints. Corresponding pixels were merged and a combination image was used to create a single image in which it appeared the person was looking straight into the camera. However, it was not possible to capture the entire face resulting in some missing pieces in the ﬁnal image. While many alternate video-conferencing systems have been developed, the most prevalent video-mediated communication system remains the version where one camera is placed above the screen. Such systems are cost-efﬁcient, portable, and compati- ble with many types of computer systems. Most laptops and tablets are now made with a small camera placed directly above the center of the display. Solutions that aim to improve eye contact Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 References AT&T, 1970: Picturephone, 2010. (retrieved 28.10.10). L. Wolgemuth, Knights of the virtual table: video conferencing grows up thanks to ‘telepresence’ systems, US News and World Report 144 (2008) 48– 50. R.L. Daft, R.H. Lengel, Organizational information requirements, media richness, and structural design, Management Science 32 (1986) 554–571. N. Guéguen, C. Jacob, Social presence reinforcement and computer-mediated communication: the effect of the solicitor’s photography on compliance to a survey request made by e-mail, CyberPyschology and Behavior 5 (2002) 139– 142. S.H. McNelley. The Signiﬁcance of Eye Contact While Desktop Video Conferencing, Ph.D. Dissertation, United States International University, United States – California, 2001. M. Argyle, M. Cook, Gaze and Mutual Gaze, Cambridge University Press, London, 1976. A. Kendon, Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction, Acta Psychologica 26 (1967) 22–63. A.J. Caron, R. Caron, J. Roberts, R. Brooks, Infant sensitivity to deviations in dynamic facial–vocal displays: the role of eye regard, Developmental Psychology 33 (1997) 802–813. T. Farroni, E. Menon, M.H. Johnson, Factors inﬂuencing newborns’ preference for faces with eye contact, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 95 (2006) 298–308. E.M. Blass, C.A. Camp, The ontogeny of face recognition: eye contact and sweet taste induce face preference in 9- and 12-week-old human infants, Developmental Psychology 37 (2001) 762–774. M.L. Spezio, P.S. Huang, F. Castelli, R. Adolphs, Amygdala damage impairs eye contact during conversations with real people, The Journal of Neuroscience 27 (2007) 3994–3997. S. Watanabe, R. Kakigi, K. Miki, A. Puce, Human MT/V5 activity on viewing eye gaze changes in others: a magnetoencephalographic study, Brain Research 1092 (2006) 152–160. E.T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, NY, 1969. J.C. Nixon, J.F. West, Intercultural preparation for managers going to Japan, Mid-American Journal of Business 10 (1995) 57–64. M.H. Levine, B. Sutton-Smith, Effects of age, sex, and task on visual behavior during dyadic interaction, Developmental Psychology 9 (1973) 400–405. P. Ricciardelli, E. Bricolo, S.M. Aglioti, L.C. Chelazzi, My eyes want to look where your eyes are looking: exploring the tendency to imitate another individual’s gaze, NeuroReport 13 (2002) 2259–2264. C. Friesen, C. Moore, A. Kingston, Does gaze direction really trigger a reﬂexive shift of spatial attention?, Brain and Cognition 57 (2004) 66–69 G. Kuhn, B.W. Tatler, G.G. Cole, You look where I look! Effect of gaze cues on overt and covert attention in misdirection, Visual Cognition 17 (2009) 925– 944. C. Fullwood, G. Doherty-Sneddon, Effect of gazing at the camera during a video link on recall, Applied Ergonomics 37 (2006) 167–175. M. Mason, E. Tatkow, C. Macrae, The look of love: gaze shifts and person perception, Psychological Science 16 (2005) 236–239. Z. Rubin, Measurement of romantic love, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16 (1970) 265–273. C.L. Kleinke, A.A. Bustos, F.B. Meeker, Effects of self-attributed and other- attributed gaze on interpersonal evaluations between males a females, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (1973) 154–163. R.B. Adams, R.E. Kleck, Effects of direct and averted gaze on the perception of facially communicated emotion, Emotion 5 (2005) 3–11. D.E. Campbell, G.E. Lancioni, The effects of staring and pew invasion in church settings, Journal of Social Psychology 108 (1979) 19–24. R.E. Kraut, D. Poe, Behavioral roots of person perception: the deception of judgments of customs inspectors and laymen, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 (1980) 784–798. Communication. Merriam-Webster.com. (n.d.). (retrieved 02.08.12). M. Gamer, H. Hecht, Are you looking at me? Measuring the cone of gaze, Journal of Experimental Psychology 33 (2007) 705–715. S.R.H. Langton, H. Honeyman, E. Tessler, The inﬂuence of head contour and nose angle on the perception of eye-gaze direction, Perception and Psychophysics 66 (2004) 752–771. J.J. Gibson, A. Pick, Perception of another person’s looking behavior, American Journal of Psychology 76 (1963) 386–394. M.G. Cline, The perception of where a person is looking, American Journal of Psychology 80 (1967) 41–51. S.M. Anstis, J.W. Mayhew, T. Morely, The perception of where a face or television ‘‘portrait’’ is looking, American Journal of Psychology 82 (1969) 474–489. M. Chen, Leveraging the asymmetric sensitivity of eye contact for videoconference, in: L. Terveen (Ed.), Proceedings of the AMC CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, New York, 2002, pp. 49–56. C. Gale, A.F. Monk, Where am I looking? The accuracy of video-mediated gaze awareness, Perception and Psychophysics 62 (2000) 586–595. L.S. Bohannon et al. / Displays 34 (2013) 177–185 185 C. Fullwood, The effect of mediation on impression formation: a comparison of Interaction 10 face-to-face and video-mediated conditions, Applied Ergonomics 38 (2007) 267–273. P.J. Werkhoven, J.M. Schraagen, P.A.J. Punte, Seeing is believing: communication performance under isotropic teleconferencing conditions, Displays 22 (2001) 37–149. visibility on dialogue and C. Fullwood, M. Finn, Video-mediated communication and impression Language and Speech 37 formation: an integrative review, in: Adam C. Rayler (Ed.), Videoconferencing: Technology, Impact and Applications, Nova Science, 2010, pp. 35–55. S. Garrond, V. Bruce, R. Vertegaal, I. Weevers, C. Sohn, C. Cheung, GAZE-2: Conveying Eye Contact in comparison of dialogue Group Video Conferencing Using Eye-Controlled Camera Direction, CHI 2003, Psychology: Applied ACM Press, 2003, pp. 521–528. See Eye2Eye: Teleprompter for Web Cameras, 2006.. E.M. Tapia, S.S. Intille, J. Rebula, S. Stoddard, Concept and Partial Prototype Video: Ubiquitous Video Communication with the Perception of Eye Contact, interference hypothesis of Ubicomp 2003 Video, Program, 2003, 2 p. (un-numbered). of Social Psychology 20 M. Ott, J.P. Lewis, I. Cox, Teleconferencing eye contract using a virtual camera, in: S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel, T. White (Eds.), INTERACT issue of trust, Ph.D. ‘93 and CHI ‘93 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing States – Mississippi, 2004. Systems (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 24-29, 1993), CHI ’93, ACM, New of four computer- York, NY, 1993, pp. 109–110. in: Proceedings of J. Gemmell, K. Toyama, C.L. Zitnick, T. Kang, S. Seitz, Gaze Awareness for Video- Conferencing: A Software Approach. IEEE MultiMedia 7, 4 (October, 2000), video conferencing 2000, pp. 26–35. (Trust & Engagement), J.W. McGowen, US Patent No. US8203595. Washington DC: US Patent and Trademark Ofﬁce, 2012..

Eye Contact and Video-Mediated Communication: A Review PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue