Alexandra Mitton - BTMM 4446 – 4/26/10
READING SUMMARY: Measuring Telepresence
Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., & Weinstein, L. (2009, November). Measuring (tele)presence: The
Temple Presence Inventory. Presented at the Twelfth International Workshop on Presence, Los
Angeles, California, USA.
This paper by Matthew Lombard, Theresa Ditton, and Lisa Weinstein begins by making a
valid point that the more advanced media becomes in our world, the more capable they are of
creating experiences for people who have grown up with less advanced media. The article strives
to show various methods in which experts attempt to measure telepresence, which can be defined
as a person’s feeling that they are connected with real or fictional environments, as well as the
objects and people within them. Although a person who is experiencing telepresence may forget
that the experience is being mediated, they generally have knowledge of the technology.
The authors first define the six different types of telepresence most commonly found in
the field. The first type described is Presence as Transportation, or the experience in which you
feel as though you or your environment have been transported. Next, they elaborate on
Telepresence as Realism; this is when an accurate representation of objects, events, and/or
people has been made. Following this Telepresence as Immersion is explained as either physical,
for example when the five senses are stimulated, or psychological. After this Telepresence as
Social Richness is mentioned, where the medium created is seen as sociable, warm, sensitive,
personal, etc. Next they write about Telepresence as a Social Actor within a Medium, which is
defined as parasocial interaction, for example, one talking to the characters on their television
screen. Finally, they identify Telepresence as the Medium as a Social Actor, in which case the
user experiences the medium itself as a social actor.
The article goes on to explain ways in which telepresence can possibly be measured,
though, they state that “There is no publicly distributed standard technique…for measuring
telepresence” (p. 2). Despite this fact, telepresence can generally be measured in two general
ways, objective, and subjective. Objective approaches typically include immersing the subject
with both real and virtual cues that conflict with each other, and if the person responds more so
to the virtual cues, rather than the real cues, then they are experiencing presence. They measure
these reactions by observing physiological signs, such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiration,
posture, etc.
The Subjective approaches to measuring telepresence are easier to administer, as well as
a way to provide a more intricate analysis of telepresence. There are two subjective approaches
used, as explained in the article. The first is qualitative methods, which provide more detailed
results but offer low reliability and so can be difficult to compare to results from different
studies. These methods consist of ethnographic observations, focus groups, and free format
interviews. The second subjective approach explained in great detail is the presence
questionnaire, which is the most widely used measure of presence. In order for these
questionnaires to be valuable they must be reliable, internally and externally consistent, have
evidence of validity, contain sensitivity (to different types and degrees of presence experiences),
and be both conceptually comprehensive and applicable.
The final pages of the articles explain in detail the composition of presence
questionnaires. Specifically, the authors created the Temple Presence Inventory, or the TPI
questionnaire that covered five of the six dimensions of presence, excluding medium as a social
actor due to its requirement to test a large number of items in their study of the TPI. They did
add items including media use habits, demographics, and the subject’s tendency to suspend
disbelief. In the first questionnaire test a large, diverse group of individuals experienced one of
two types of mediated experiences, a high presence mediated environment, and a low presence
mediated environment. The high presence mediated environment was a 45 minute 3D-IMAX
film, T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous, complete with surround sound. Participants were informed
about the study before the film, being told that university researchers were looking for volunteers
to fill out a questionnaire on their responses to the film. After the film, willing participants took
10-30 minutes to fill out the 137 item questionnaire. In the low presence mediated experience
one to three volunteer Temple staff and students at a time sat in a brightly lit office and they
watched an old episode of Three’s Company on a small black and white television, and were
allowed to converse freely.
The results were based on a statistical technique called factor analysis that groups
questions, and they produced 8 different groups (factors). Some of the questions were “How
much did it seem like you could reach out and touch the objects or people you saw/heard?,”
“During the media experience how well were you able to observe the facial expressions of the
people you saw/heard?,” and “To what extent did you feel mentally immersed in the
experience?” When reviewing the results it surprised me that for passive and active social
presence the low presence mediated experience had higher results, including questions like
“How well were you able to observe the facial expressions of the people you saw/heard?,” and
“How often did you make a sound out loud (e.g., laugh, speak) in response to someone you
saw/heard in the media environment?”. The authors believe that this is a result of the content of
the high presence experience, being that it was a film about dinosaurs, with little known actors,
and few close ups. In every other presence category (factor), as expected, the high presence
experience dominates in the statistics.
The article goes on to detail another study in which the authors test the validity and
reliability of the TPI through different media content. As the conclusion mentions, it is highly
likely that when measuring telepresence, one should base their study methods on the type of
presence being measured, as well as the media used and the environment in which the study is
taking place.
The paper was generally easy to follow, the case studies were simple, but the factors got a
little complicated and hard to keep up with. I did find it interesting, since measuring something
like telepresence is indeed a challenge. There are many outside influences and personality traits
that may alter one’s telepresence experience. For example, as a college student majoring in
telecommunications, I have a wide knowledge of film and television production. This allows me
to know how and why many techniques are done, which may lessen my telepresence experience.
Factors such as these vary among the population, making it difficult to generalize what may or
may not cause presence, and how high the presence will be.