The Potential of Telepresence in Libraries: Students’ Perspectives

1 Introduction

Throughout history, libraries have traditionally served as physical spaces that grant people access to knowledge, fostering diverse educational and social pursuits and safeguarding the collective wisdom and cultural heritage of humanity for the benefit of future generations (Virkus and Metsar 2004; White 2012). However, with the rapid advancements in technology and the growing demand for remote access to information and services, libraries are faced with the challenge of providing inclusive services that cater to users beyond their physical boundaries. In this regard, telepresence offers a solution for libraries.

The term “telepresence”, first introduced by Marvin Minsky in 1980, pertains to the use of multimedia components, including sound, vision and touch, to reproduce the sensation of being physically present in a distant location (Shen and Shirmohammadi 2006). The deployment of telepresence relies on various technologies, notably videoconferencing software applications such as Zoom, Teams, Skype and Webex (Gillies 2008; Lawson et al. 2010; Suduc and Bizoi 2022). Furthermore, the integration of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technologies enhances telepresence by immersing users in interactive virtual environments (Cipresso et al. 2018). Holographic telepresence takes this concept further, projecting three-dimensional representations and effectively creating the illusion of physical coexistence (Ramirez-Lopez et al. 2021). Additionally, wearable devices like smart glasses, headsets or accessories with built-in cameras, microphones and displays enhance telepresence by elevating the user’s sensory experience and enabling remote interaction (Nasiopoulos et al. 2015).

Moreover, telepresence robots (TPRs), characterised as mobile wheeled devices manipulated from a distance, come equipped with a range of interactive functionalities, including cameras, speakers, microphones, screens and sensor-assisted motion control, all of which enhance seamless communication and support collaboration from remote locations] (Kristoffersson, Coradeschi, and Loutfi 2013; Tuli, Terefe, and Rashid 2021; Vaughn, Shaw, and Molloy 2015; Virkus et al. 2023). TPRs empower the human operator not only to perceive, listen and interact through the technology but also to navigate and investigate the surroundings of the remote location (Boudouraki et al. 2022; Decker 2015; Winterstein et al. 2021). Typically, a TPR comprises a video conferencing system affixed to a remotely operated mobile base, with the operator managing its movements through a computer, tablet or smartphone interface while engaging with individuals who are physically co-present with the TPR. Consequently, the user experiences a level of physical autonomy and embodiment that distinguishes TPRs from conventional videoconferencing systems (Boudouraki et al. 2021).

Interest in TPRs has expanded across diverse domains, including healthcare, elderly assistance, office work, museums and education (Almeida, Menezes, and Dias 2022; Virkus et al. 2023). Moreover, TPRs find application in industrial contexts, undertaking tasks considered perilous for humans (Hernandez, Waechter, and Bullinger 2021; Johansson and De Vin 2009; Trevelyan, Hamel, and Kang 2016), while experimental applications like geocaching and collaborative shopping reveal additional promising possibilities (Björnfot 2022; Heshmat et al. 2018). The growing appeal of TPRs can be attributed to their potential for cost and time savings, alongside their capacity to enhance communication, social presence, equity and accessibility (Davey 2021; Lei et al. 2022). By eliminating geographical barriers, TPRs enable remote participation, benefiting those with chronic illnesses, limited mobility, hospitalisation or disabilities, thus introducing novel solutions for remote communication and collaboration (Vaughn, Shaw, and Molloy 2015; Zhang 2021).

However, TPRs have limitations, including slow and cumbersome movement, challenging navigation, inability to handle stairs or doors and reliance on a stable network connection. These devices lack audio feedback and complicating conversational engagement, while their limited sensing capabilities impede situational awareness, often necessitating local assistance (Boudouraki et al. 2021; Lee and Takayama 2011).

Despite their advantages, TPRs remain a novelty, primarily embraced by early adopters (Reis et al. 2019). Mainstream adoption in professional settings lags behind videoconferencing, largely due to perceived limitations in usefulness (Lei et al. 2022). Successful adoption requires public familiarity with TPRs, understanding of their functions and a willingness to interact with and assist them as needed (Boudouraki, Fischer, and Reeves 2020).

TPRs offer libraries a myriad of perspectives, however, this topic remains largely unexplored in the scientific literature. Searches of the Web of Science and Scopus databases yielded only five publications addressing the use of TPRs in a library context, with Guth and Vander Meer (2017) providing some early cases of academic libraries adopting TPRs.

One of the earliest examples is from Baylor University in 2012, which used the VGo TPR to allow Texas K-12 students to tour the library (Logan, Orr, and Holgersson 2012). Elsewhere, the University of Texas – Arlington Central Library hosted a robot petting zoo in 2015, where distance users were also able to meet people and explore the library through TPR (Martin 2015). A third example was the Grand Valley State University’s library, which gave students and faculty a chance to experiment with Double TPRs and evaluate their educational potential (Raths 2015). Decker (2015) describes several advantages of incorporating TPRs into an academic library to improve library operations, including staffing and security, virtual reference and distance learning services and public relations. She discusses using VGo TPR at the Atlanta University Center as a mobile library tour guide and ambassador for library visitors, a teleconferencing device for virtual reference and distance education students and a robot for students to experiment with. Elsewhere, a study conducted at the King Library on the Oxford, Ohio campus of Miami University implemented the Double TPR to investigate its effectiveness in providing remote services, which revealed librarians’ positive view of TPRs but recommended the traveling librarian model for more effective task management (Guth and Vander Meer 2017; Hartsell-Gundy, Johnson, and Kromer 2015). Guth and Vander Meer (2017) also described a collaboration between the Western Michigan University Library and the Western Michigan University Communication and Social Robotics Lab to introduce TPRs in high-traffic settings by students around 2015.

While many examples are from the United States, De Sarkar (2023) highlights Chulalongkorn University in Thailand’s adoption of a TPR for user engagement, concluding that TPRs effectively facilitate communication, enabling subject librarians to guide researchers in proper search procedures and resource identification. Elsewhere, Nguyen et al. (2022) demonstrated TPR use at Eastern International University in Vietnam, where a guide robot assisted students with various inquiries, from COVID-19 updates to book searches and freshman quizzes. While one article (Tella and Ogbonna 2023) provides an extensive account of TPR applications in libraries, the majority of its references appear to lack authenticity, with the cited case studies lacking verifiable evidence. Consequently, the materials cited in that article have not been utilised in this paper.

This study examines the utilisation of TPRs in libraries, focusing on the perspectives of library and information science (LIS) students. The study is guided by the following research questions: (1) What are students’ perceptions about TPRs?; and (2) How could TPRs be used in libraries from the point of view of LIS students?

The structure of this paper is organised as follows: after an introduction to the topic, the following section provides the theoretical background which underpins the study, with the third section describing the research methodology and the fourth section presenting the findings. Finally, the fifth section presents discussions, conclusions and suggestions for future research.

2 Theoretical Background

Telepresence intersects with several areas of research including computer-mediated communication (CMC) and human-computer interaction (HCI). While CMC research has focused on the differences between interpersonal and mediated communication – how computing tools afford and influence social interactions and how CMC differs from face-to-face interactions – research in the HCI field also examines the psychological similarities between interaction with humans and with media (Sundar et al. 2015; Xu and Liao 2018). In addition, with the rapid proliferation of diverse computer technologies, including mobile phones, tablets and robots, the scope of CMC and HCI research has expanded significantly beyond traditional computers. The term “computer” now encompasses a broader, more inclusive concept, encompassing all digital devices that facilitate connectivity between individuals in different locations (Xu and Liao 2018; Zhao 2006). HCI plays a pivotal role in ensuring machines’ usability, like robotic systems, and the success and effectiveness in targeting end-users (Gulliksen 2017; Søgaard Neilsen and Wilson 2019). By analysing the dynamic relationship between humans and digital devices, HCI researchers aim to develop technology that seamlessly integrates with human capabilities, enhances user experience and effectively caters to user needs. This holistic approach recognises that successful interactive systems must not only be functional but also user-friendly, taking into account the various human factors during their design and development process (Edmonds 2014). By placing users at the forefront of design and development processes, HCI ensures that technology aligns with their goals, preferences and expectations (Xu 2019).

Today, the rapid diffusion of cutting-edge media technologies, such as chatbots, TPRs, voice agents and virtual and augmented reality technologies, are blurring the traditional boundaries between CMC and HCI. The integration of CMC and HCI thus becomes essential in explaining users’ social responses to TPRs which allow users to simultaneously interact with physical bodies and communicate with distant partners (Xu and Liao 2018). By facilitating seamless interactions with digital social actors and through computer systems, these innovative technologies are reshaping the way users engage in the digital realm and fostering the emergence of new theories; the notion of Cyborg coupling thus goes beyond mere integration of cutting-edge technologies with our physical bodies, transcending the boundaries between technology and our minds (Biocca 1997; Haraway 1985). This transformative synergy has the power to fundamentally reshape and redefine our understanding of CMC and HCI (Xu and Liao 2018), with robotic telepresence thus becoming an important research topic in HCI (Beer and Takayama 2011; Björnfot 2022; Herring et al. 2016; Rae, Mutlu, and Takayama 2014; Tsui and Yanco 2013).

Human-robot interaction (HRI) is another area that focuses on interactions between humans and robots (Zhang 2021), aiming to understand, design and evaluate robotic systems for human use (Goodrich and Schultz 2008). Key focus areas include human perception and seamless integration of robots into human environments (Bartneck and Moltchanova 2020; Henschel, Hortensius, and Cross 2020), and telepresence can thus be used as a tool for HRI by allowing users to remotely control robots and interact with their environment in real-time (Tuli, Terefe, and Rashid 2021). Boudouraki, Fischer, and Reeves (2020) note that from the perspective of a bystander the TPR might look like a social robot or other electronic equipment, however, a TPR is more accurately conceived of as the robotic extension of a real person. It has been found that local users are at times confused about whether to treat a TPR as a person or as an object, for example with regards to touching and personal space (Boudouraki, Fischer, and Reeves 2020; Lee and Takayama 2011). Considering that these behaviours are intricately tied to users’ mental models of TPRs – what they are and how they should be utilised – it becomes evident that these mental models exhibit variations among individuals and across different situations (Boudouraki, Fischer, and Reeves 2020).

Widespread acceptance of TPRs is crucial for seamless integration into library services. The successful implementation of new technology is closely linked to social and human factors, explored through technology acceptance models (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Savela, Turja, and Oksanen 2017; Venkatesh and Davis 2000), with notable models including the technology acceptance model (TAM), unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and innovation diffusion theory (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Malhotra and Galletta 1999; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Rogers 1995). Social cognitive theory by Albert Bandura (1986) explains how technology use intentions, often integrated with usability theories. These models address user concerns, aiding successful technology implementation (Kasuk and Virkus 2023).

Developed by Davis in 1989, TAM is a widely recognised framework explaining users’ acceptance and adoption of new technologies. Rooted in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), TAM focuses on specific beliefs about technology use shaping behavioral intentions and serves as a pivotal tool for predicting user behavior, offering a theoretical framework for successful technology implementation (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Marikyan and Papagiannidis 2023). Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw (1989) identified perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as fundamental determinants of user acceptance, reflecting beliefs in how technology enhances performance and the perceived effortlessness of use, respectively; TAM, in turn, suggests that the trade-off between these factors influences technology usage decisions (Davis 1993; Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989; Marikyan and Papagiannidis 2023). The perceived usefulness and acceptance of TPRs have been studied with various groups, including faculty and students (Herring 2013; Lei et al. 2022; Wernbacher et al. 2022), healthcare professionals (Turja et al. 2020), older adults (Mascret and Temprado 2023; Wu et al. 2017) and pre-service teachers (Han and Conti 2020).

Several studies have also shown that the acceptance of TPRs may be low due to their poor ease of use (Berisha, Kölle, and Griesbaum 2015; Hartsell-Gundy, Johnson, and Kromer 2015; Herring 2013; Lei et al. 2022; Park 2013; Wu et al. 2017). Although the TAM framework shows that perceived ease of use is a positive predictor of use intention, the empirical results vary (Turja et al. 2020; Lei et al. 2022). However, TAM is a theoretical framework that helps to explain and predict individuals’ acceptance and usage of technology. Although it is primarily a quantitative model, its underlying concepts and constructs can be adapted for qualitative studies to investigate the utilisation of TPRs.

In summary, the integration of insights from the fields of CMC, HCI, HRI and TAM informed the study’s design, contributing to a holistic understanding of the dynamics, challenges and factors that shape the acceptance and effectiveness of library consultants utilising TPRs.

3 Methodology

This study investigated LIS students’ perceptions of TPRs and their use in libraries. Three models of TPRs were used in the pilot: Ohmni by OhmniLabs, Double 3 by Double Robotics and Temi by temi USA inc.

These TPRs have a lot in common: they all have a wheeled base with a heavy battery section, a screen on top of the robot for video communication, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity and are equipped with microphones, speakers and cameras that facilitate two-way communication. TPRs allow users to remotely control their movements and interact with their surroundings using a computer, tablet or smartphone.

Double 3 has two 13 Megapixel cameras (wide angle and superzoom lenses) that can tilt upward and downward to adapt to different scenarios, such as perusing documents on a desk or zooming in on specific points of interest. Of these models, the Double 3 has the shortest battery life; according to the specification it can last up to four hours on a single charge, with a two-hour recharge time. This TPR has a built-in obstacle avoidance technology displaying navigational guidelines in the form of floor markings to aid the driver in guiding the TPR along secure paths; the driver can click anywhere on the floor and the TPR will go there, avoiding obstacles along the way. It is also the only TPR that can adjust its height, with a range from 120 to 152 cm. Moreover, the Double 3 TPR offers the capability of accommodating multiple individuals within a single robotic unit; while only one person assumes a leading role, appearing prominently on the TPR’s display, others can also participate and engage through this technology (Double Robotics 2023; Nichols 2022).

Ohmni TPR has a single camera for communication: a 13 Megapixel module with 4K resolution that offers digital zoom. The camera is fixed firmly on top of the screen, but the screen itself can tilt vertically, allowing the operator to look up and down. Ohmni has a height of 142 cm, with its batteries lasting up to four to five hours in a call and around eight to ten hours on standby (OhmniLabs 2023). Ohmni is also the only robot to offer user-controlled variable speed and can go as fast as 3.5 km/h.

Temi TPR is the smallest of three robots used in the pilot, with its height 100 cm (Temi 2023), and it has the most sophisticated set of sensors, including LIDAR with 360 degrees reach, two built-in depth cameras and five proximity sensors. Temi can create a map of the surroundings and navigate independently between user-created reference points.

The cost of TPRs varies greatly and is often divided into several parts, such as the robot itself, software license, cloud environment, technical support, etc. In addition, the manufacturers do not often specify the price on the company’s website, instead providing a contact form for communication.

The study was conducted in November 2022 as part of the elective course “Library Didactics” of the bachelor of LIS curriculum at Tallinn University. The research comprised four LIS students, consisting of two females and two males, all in their third year pursuing bachelor’s degrees in LIS, with their ages ranging from 21 to 40. In addition, the pilot involved one physically present adult library visitor and two adult library visitors remotely connected via Ohmni and Temi TPRs.

A pilot deployment of TPRs took place at the TalTech faculty library over a three-hour period. Initially, students received a concise 15-minute introduction to TPRs and their functionalities. Subsequently, they had the opportunity to hone their skills in operating TPRs, before then taking on the role of library consultants using two Double 3 TPRs. TPRs provided an opportunity to navigate the library space, interact with physical objects and provide two-way communication experience between TPR-mediated student library consultants, a physically present visitor and two TPR-mediated library visitors. All three library visitors, who performed tasks such as searching and finding resources in the library, were advised by student library consultants who served visitors through TPRs. During the pilot phase, the researchers refrained from engaging with the participants.

Beyond the pilot, qualitative methods, including student essays and a 90-minute focus group interviews, were employed. After the pilot, students wrote essays on TPR applications in memory institutions, complemented by insights gathered from the focus group session.

The four students participating in the pilot took part in a focus group interview conducted by one of the researchers in the research group, which investigated participants’ perceptions of TPRs through ten probing questions. The inquiry covered their overall perspectives on TPRs, including advantages, limitations, opportunities and challenges, while participants were also prompted to share insights into potential applications of TPRs within the GLAM sector, emphasising opportunities, limitations, challenges and contextual benefits. The focus group interview was conducted via Zoom, recorded and transcribed for analysis. This rich qualitative dataset about participants’ experiences and perceptions of TPRs proved invaluable in exploring and understanding various aspects of using TPRs in libraries.

The study’s data analysis phase employed a combination of robust qualitative techniques, including thematic analysis and content analysis, to examine the qualitative data collected via student essays and a focus group interview. Through this process, key themes, patterns and relationships within the data were identified, facilitating an understanding of the advantages, limitations and challenges pertaining to the implementation of TPRs in libraries.

The researchers drew on the conceptualisations of CMC, HCI, HRI domain and the TAM model to design the study, comprehend the data and derive insights into the benefits and challenges associated with this innovative approach to library services. The study involved investigating users’ perceptions, attitudes and interactions with TPRs, analysing aspects such as acceptance of TPRs, ease of use, their comfort levels, satisfaction, learning curve, challenges encountered and perceived usefulness of TPRs in enhancing the efficiency of library services. Understanding the user experience can help identify areas for improvement and optimise the design and implementation of TPRs in the library context.

4 Results

In this section, the answers to the research questions are presented in two main themes: (1) Students’ perceptions of TPRs; and (2) Potential of TPRs for libraries from the students’ point of view.

5 Discussions and Conclusions

This study explored the perceptions and experiences of four third-year LIS bachelor’s students regarding the use of TPRs. The study examined their perceptions and TPRs’ perceived usefulness, ease of use, challenges and limitations, as well as the potential of using TPRs in libraries.