The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology
Abstract
Three different videoconferencing systems for supporting multiparty, remote conversations are described and evaluated experimentally. The three systems differed by how many participants were visible at once, their spatial arrangement, and control over who was seen. Conversations using these systems were compared to same-room (Experiment 1) and audio-only (Experiment 2) conversations. Specialized speech-tracking equipment recorded the on-off patterns of speech that allowed objective measurement of structural aspects of the conversations, such as turn length, pauses, and interruptions. Questionnaires and interviews also documented participants' opinions and perceptions in the various settings. Contrary to expectation, systems in which visual cues such as selective gaze were absent produced no differences in turn-taking or in any other aspect of the structure of conversation. In fact, turn-taking was unaffected even when visual information was completely absent. Overall, only the same-room condition showed any significant differences from any other condition; people in the same room produced more interruptions and fewer formal handovers of the floor than in any of the technology-mediated conditions. In this respect, the audio-only and video systems examined in these studies were equivalent. However, analyses of participants' perceptions showed that participants felt that visual access in mediated conversations was both important and beneficial in conversation. Further, there were indications that the particular design of the different video systems did affect some aspects of conversational behavior, such as the ability to hold side and parallel conversations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Cited by
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016 · Cited by 733
Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 · Cited by 686
Collaborative augmented reality
Billinghurst, M., & Kato, H. (2002) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/514236.514265 · Cited by 580
Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations
Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 · Cited by 575
Garau, M., Slater, M., Vinayagamoorthy, V., Brogni, A., Steed, A., & Sasse, M. A. (2003) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/642611.642703 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Sellen, A.
- Venue
- Human-Computer Interaction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-12-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 401-444
- ISSN
- 0737-0024 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083186017
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 70.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15327051hci1004_2
- The paper
- Sellen, A. (1995). Remote Conversations: The Effects of Mediating Talk With Technology. Human-Computer Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1004_2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.