Collaborating remotely: an evaluation of immersive capabilities on spatial experiences and team membership

Figures & data

Table 1. Conditions of experimental design.

Location	Immersiveness as field of view (FOV)
	Narrow FOV (One-screen) A	Medium FOV (Three-screen) B	Wide FOV (Head-mounted display) C
Conference room (1)	A1	B1	C1
Plaza (2)	A2	B2	C2

Figure 1. Experimental design with levels of FOV as immersiveness.

Table 2. Measures adapted for use in this study.

Source	Factor	Measure	Example of adapted measure
Schweitzer and Duxbury (2010)	Team membership	Team satisfaction	All in all, I am satisfied with my experience with this virtual team.
Slater et al. (2000)	Co-presence	Co-presence	In the last meeting, to what extent did you have the sense of the other two people being together with you?
Vorderer et al. (2004)	Spatial presence	Attentional allocation	I devoted my whole attention to the virtual space I just viewed.
		Self-location	I felt as though I was physically present in the environment of the virtual space I just viewed.
Agarwal and Karahanna (2000)	Cognitive absorption	Temporal dissociation	Time appeared to go by very quickly while viewing the virtual space.
Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1992)	Perceived enjoyment	Enjoyment	I found viewing the virtual space fun.

Figure 2. The overall hardware setup connecting the two locations (participant and remote team members).

Figure 3. Indoor location with participant office space on the left and collaborator conference room on the right.

Figure 4. Outdoor location with participant office space on the left and collaborator plaza on the right.

Figure 5. Reference photos shown to participants when introducing the task.

Figure 6. The map of potential locations (A, B, C) in an outdoor plaza for recycling bin placement shown to participants.

Table 3. Adjusted means for co-presence and spatial presence.

	Immersiveness	Adj. M	SE
Co-presence	Single-screen	6.59	.20
	Three-screen	6.96	.19
	Oculus rift	6.85	.21
Self-location	Single-screen	6.66	.28
	Three-screen	6.27	.26
	Oculus rift	7.05	.30

Table 4. Summary of multiple regression coefficients for model 2.

Variable	B	SE	β
Intercept	5.51	.49
Self-location	0.13	.04	.37**
Attentional allocation	0.26	.07	.38**

Note: B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error of the coefficient; β = standardized coefficient.

**p < .001.

Figure 7. Influence of Location after controlling for Spatial Presence on Team Satisfaction.

Schweitzer, Linda, and Linda Duxbury. 2010. “Conceptualizing and Measuring the Virtuality of Teams.” Information Systems Journal 20 (3): 267–295. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00326.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Slater, Mel, Amela Sadagic, Martin Usoh, and Ralph Schroeder. 2000. “Small-group Behavior in a Virtual and Real Environment: A Comparative Study.” Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 9 (1): 37–51. doi:10.1162/105474600566600.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vorderer, P., W. Wirth, F. R. Gouveia, F. Biocca, T. Saari, F. Jäncke, S. Böcking, et al. 2004. “ MEC Spatial Presence Questionnaire (MEC-SPQ): Short Documentation and Instructions for Application.” Project Presence: MEC (IST-2001-37661). http://www.ijk.hmt-hannover.de/presence

 Google Scholar

Agarwal, Ritu, and Elena Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage.” Management Information Systems Quarterly 24 (4). http://aisel.aisnet.org/misq/vol24/iss4/5 doi: 10.2307/3250951

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw. 1992. “Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace1.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22 (14): 1111–1132. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar