Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts

of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality Embodiments for

Remote Meetings

James J. Cummings

1 a

and Erin W. Wertz

2 b

Division of Emerging Media Studies, Boston University, Boston, U.S.A.

Centre for Migration Research, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

Keywords:

Holograms, Avatars, Remote Meetings, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Telepresence.

Abstract:

In the face of ”videoconferencing fatigue”, augmented reality (AR) presents new means for embodiment in

remote meetings, including the use of holograms (stereoscopic projections of attendees) and avatars (wholly

virtual representations of users). To explore the prospective beneﬁts of these emerging technologies, the cur-

rent experiment assigned participants to one of three platform conditions (videoconferencing, hologram-based

AR, or avatar-based AR) to complete two conversational tasks (unidirectional object presentation and inter-

active collaboration) during a remote meeting. Task outcomes (knowledge acquisition, partner persuasion)

and participant evaluations of remote partners were then measured. Users reported that avatars—and not

holograms—were signiﬁcantly more useful than videoconferencing for object presentations. Further, though

platform had no effect on perceived credibility of partners, social presence perceptions signiﬁcantly differed

across conditions. Speciﬁcally, the actions and expressions of a holographic partner were more saliently

detected than those depicted through avatars and led to a stronger sense of co-location compared to videocon-

ferencing.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Communication Demands of

Videoconferencing

Reliance on videoconferencing for remote meetings

has grown exponentially in recent years, with the

pandemic accelerating the adoption of commercially

available teleconferencing platforms (Iqbal, 2023;

Hove and Watson, 2023). This widespread use has,

in turn, led to the emergence of videoconferenc-

ing fatigue, a phenomenon characterized by neg-

ative psychological and behavioral effects associ-

ated with prolonged use of this technology (Beyea

et al., 2025). Several potential causes for this fatigue

have been proposed, drawing upon extensive research

in interpersonal communication, social psychology,

and computer-mediated communication (Bailenson,

2021; Bergmann et al., 2022; Li and Yee, 2022). One

prominent factor may be cognitive overload, as users

are required not only to follow conversational content

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-2634

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0293-2840

but also to monitor and regulate their mediated non-

verbal signals (Bailenson, 2021). Speciﬁcally, video-

conferencing often demands frequent checking of

one’s positioning within the camera’s ﬁeld of view to

remain properly framed; furthermore, because video-

conferencing is largely sedentary and emphasizes the

face and a forward-facing upper body, participants of-

ten feel compelled to exaggerate facial expressions

and permitted gestures to demonstrate engagement.

This includes prolonged nodding to indicate agree-

ment or extended staring to signal attention, adding

to the overall cognitive effort.

In addition to the challenge of sending these non-

verbal signals, videoconferencing fatigue may arise

from the effort required to detect and interpret such

cues from others (Bailenson, 2021; Fauville et al.,

2021; Nesher Shoshan and Wehrt, 2022). Compared

to fully embodied face-to-face conversations, video-

conferencing allows for relatively limited nonverbal

communication, relying primarily on facial expres-

sions and perceived eye gaze. However, as videocon-

ferencing takes place on computers on which users are

often multitasking with other software, a user’s dart-

ing eyes or slight grin may be in response to screen

Cummings, J. J. and Wertz, E. W.

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality Embodiments for Remote Meetings.

DOI: 10.5220/0013317500003912

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics Theory and Applications (VISIGRAPP 2025) - Volume 1: GRAPP, HUCAPP

and IVAPP, pages 639-652

ISBN: 978-989-758-728-3; ISSN: 2184-4321

639

content wholly unrelated to the conversation at hand,

providing mistaken cues for one’s conversation part-

ners.

Additionally, videoconferencing imposes emo-

tional demands by simulating interpersonal proximity

typically reserved for interactions with close friends

and family (Bailenson, 2021). In face-to-face meet-

ings, discomfort from prolonged eye contact can of-

ten be alleviated by natural shifts in gaze. However,

videoconferencing conventions involve maintaining

the gaze of others directly on the user for extended

periods, which can feel especially arousing and emo-

tionally taxing. These front-facing, close-proximity

interactions amplify affective demands, as users pro-

cess both the persistent gaze and the seemingly in-

timate framing of their conversation partners. This

emotional strain, alongside cognitive demands of reg-

ulating and detecting social cues as noted above, may

explain the negative user experiences often reported

in prolonged remote meetings.

1.2 Social Augmented Reality as an

Alternative Technology for Remote

Communication

Given such accounts, negative user experiences with

videoconferencing may stem from its inability to fully

replicate the dynamics of face-to-face communica-

tion, particularly in terms of salience of nonverbal

cues, physical freedom for expressing these cues,

and natural interpersonal distances. These limita-

tions have driven interest in alternative forms of “dig-

ital travel” for remote meetings (Tjostheim and Wa-

terworth, 2022), focusing on solutions that are more

embodied, nonverbally rich, spatialized, or otherwise

closer to in-person interactions.

One promising direction involves social aug-

mented reality (AR) applications, which, unlike 2D

videoconferencing or entirely virtual reality environ-

ments, create “hybrid” spaces (Harrison and Dourish,

1996). These combine virtual embodiments of par-

ticipants with elements of their physical surroundings

(van Dijk, 2022; Hauber et al., 2006). One approach is

the development of AR holographic displays that ren-

der stereoscopic projections of remote partners. Al-

ternatively, some social AR applications instead fo-

cus on avatar-based teleconferencing, where users in-

teract through virtual embodiments overlaid on their

immediate environment. These approaches may of-

fer varying degrees of improvement over 2D video-

conferencing by differentially addressing the factors

thought to contribute to fatigue and other negative

outcomes.

1.2.1 Hologram-Based Teleconferencing

Holographic imaging has been heralded as “the

next big innovation in teleconferencing” (Tjostheim

and Waterworth, 2022), with its potential applica-

tions in business (Pettit et al., 1988) and educa-

tion (Hirschbuhl, 1980) discussed in academic liter-

ature since the 1980s. By the 1990s, researchers

exploring videoconferencing in professional settings

predicted that the drive for increasingly realistic

and high-quality visual communication could even-

tually lead to holographic imaging as the next fron-

tier in remote meeting technologies (Fini, 1993).

Even into the 2010s, scholars suggested that holo-

graphic 3D displays remained a key avenue for

advancing commercial-grade videoconferencing sys-

tems (Kuster et al., 2012).

After years of such projects, holographic commu-

nication, featuring stereoscopic renderings of remote

meeting attendees, is ﬁnally entering the market. This

progress has been enabled by recent technological ad-

vances, most notably the expansion of reliable 5G net-

works, which provide the high-speed, low-latency in-

frastructure necessary for real-time holographic com-

munication (Su et al., 2020; He et al., 2023). Beyond

technology, societal demand has also fueled interest

in this medium. While avatars are often used as vir-

tual alternatives to face-to-face communication, holo-

graphic technologies are increasingly framed as full

substitutes or ”digital twins” of reality. The COVID-

19 pandemic, which made face-to-face interaction im-

possible in many cases, has been cited as a catalyst for

their development (Hsiao et al., 2022).

Holographic conferencing, by rendering partic-

ipants as they naturally move and appear, offers

richer social cues than lower-ﬁdelity formats such

as text or 2D video, potentially reducing perception

gaps common in computer-mediated communication

(Yang, 2021). Consumer-facing systems are now un-

der development, including Google’s Project Starline

(Google, 2024) and Cisco’s Webex Hologram (We-

bex, 2024b). These AR-based platforms maintain

users’ connection to their immediate surroundings,

avoiding the perceptual disconnection associated with

fully immersive virtual reality. Instead, they aim to

replicate a sense of physical co-location with remote

participants.

Empirical studies on AR teleconferencing with

volumetric 3D projections of attendees, as opposed

to 2D video recordings, remain sparse. Existing re-

search primarily focuses on prototype validation and

system presentations (Pl

uss et al., 2016; Pejsa et al.,

2016), rather than detailed evaluations of user ex-

perience or conversational dynamics. However, in

line with these systems’ emphasis on perceived co-

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

640

location with remote others, it has been suggested that

they may elicit relatively high levels of perceived so-

cial presence between users (Yoon et al., 2019).

1.2.2 Avatar-Based Teleconferencing

Another emerging AR-based alternative to videocon-

ferencing is the use of 3D avatars layered over one’s

physical surroundings. While commercial platforms

like Microsoft Mesh (Microsoft, 2024a) and Meta

Horizon Worlds (Meta, 2024) have recently popular-

ized avatar-centric AR and VR applications, academic

research on avatar-based teleconferencing dates back

decades. Early studies often compared 2D avatars to

minimalist self-representations, such as static images

or screen markers, ﬁnding that while avatars may dis-

tract from instrumental tasks, they can enhance in-

formal exchanges and socialization, with these richer

representations able to enhance informal information

exchange through playful behaviors (Shami et al.,

2010). Rendering physical motions—via video or 2D

avatars—has been shown to improve communication

compared to static representations or voice-only chats

(Tanaka et al., 2013), though 2D avatars may result in

lower perceived co-location (Tanaka et al., 2014) and

trust levels compared to video-based interactions (Pan

and Steed, 2016).

In contrast, recent research into 3D avatars in im-

mersive virtual environments suggests they may offer

stronger feelings of copresence compared to conven-

tional videoconferencing tools like Microsoft Teams

(Ferrer and Fujiwara, 2022; Microsoft, 2024b). Be-

yond teleconferencing scenarios in particular, studies

on embodiment levels in avatars indicate that even

limited motion-controlled representations, such as

head and hands, can heighten copresence and behav-

ioral interdependence, suggesting full-body avatars

are unnecessary for effective social interactions in AR

or VR (Heidicker et al., 2017). Furthermore, visual

realism of avatars inﬂuences social perceptions: re-

alistic 3D avatars can enhance perceived credibility

of a remote conversation partner compared to car-

toonish avatars (Jo et al., 2016a), though both types

elicit similar levels of social presence (Yoon et al.,

2019). Users generally prefer realistic avatars for self-

representation (Inkpen and Sedlins, 2011). Addition-

ally, the fully virtual nature of avatars in immersive

environments allows for dynamic modulation of em-

bodiment in social contexts, such as adjusting inter-

personal distance (Choudhary et al., 2021), which is

not possible with video recordings.

Further, avatars also address common issues re-

lated to focusing on self-presentation in videoconfer-

encing, such as ”mirror anxiety” and dissatisfaction

with one’s appearance (Fauville et al., 2021; Ratan

et al., 2022). Importantly, as research shows that en-

vironmental ﬁdelity can enhance outcomes like pres-

ence and task performance (Luo et al., 2023), social

AR applications that retain perceptual self-location

within users’ actual physical surroundings while en-

abling avatar-based interactions may combine the

beneﬁts of heightened embodiment with the familiar-

ity of a real-world environment, reducing the need to

adapt to entirely virtual spaces as is the case with so-

cial VR platforms.

1.3 The Possible Relative Beneﬁts of

New AR Holograms and Avatars

over Conventional

Videoconferencing

Despite the ongoing development of AR-based re-

mote meeting platforms, and the aforementioned re-

search into both avatars and holograms, little empir-

ical research has directly compared these new AR

hologram and avatar-based platforms to mainstream

videoconferencing. Based on the literature, it remains

unclear how the visual displays of AR platforms may

differ in avoiding or replicating the issues thought to

underlie interpersonal communication challenges as-

sociated with videoconferencing (Bailenson, 2021; Li

and Yee, 2022) or simple 2D avatar systems (Tanaka

et al., 2014; Pan and Steed, 2016).

Whether hologram-based or avatar-based, spatial-

ized conferencing technologies that incorporate real-

world reference frames may enhance the detection of

nonverbal cues, such as eye gaze, compared to 2D

videoconferencing (Hauber et al., 2006). This could

help mitigate the cognitive demands related to cue-

processing thought to contribute to videoconferenc-

ing fatigue. However, the extent to which hologram-

based and avatar-based systems address speciﬁc fac-

tors—such as nonverbal cue delivery, user physical

orientation requirements, approximated interpersonal

distance, attention focus, or self-perception of facial

appearance—varies. For instance, avatar-based tele-

conferencing may reduce fatigue by fostering height-

ened feelings of copresence, enabling spatial posi-

tioning at appropriate interpersonal distances, and

emphasizing key nonverbals like hand gestures, re-

sulting in more socially engaging interactions. By

contrast, holographic teleconferencing, which relies

on specialized cameras for depth capture, often limits

user mobility and body language similar to 2D video

conferencing. However, it may provide higher visual

realism and a stronger sense of spatial co-location

with other attendees.

In summary, both avatar-based and hologram-

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

641

based teleconferencing may offer advantages over

conventional videoconferencing, but their relative

beneﬁts depend on which aspects of face-to-face in-

teractions they replicate most effectively.

In turn, this exploratory study directly com-

pares cutting-edge hologram- and avatar-based re-

mote meeting platforms to assess their relative ad-

vantages over traditional videoconferencing for me-

diated conversation tasks (Gaver, 1992). It represents

one of the ﬁrst formal examinations of task outcomes

and user evaluations of remote partners in a holo-

graphic teleconferencing context. Additionally, it in-

vestigates how these differences vary depending on

the type of conversational task, such as a unidirec-

tional, visually oriented presentation versus a bidirec-

tional, discussion-oriented collaboration. While prior

studies have applied 3D AR concepts to social inter-

actions (Hirskyj-Douglas et al., 2020; Ludwig et al.,

2021), this research is among the ﬁrst to empirically

compare multiple commercially available spatialized

conferencing platforms with contemporary videocon-

ferencing. It provides novel insights into the context-

speciﬁc strengths of hologram- and avatar-based tele-

conferencing, offering practical and immediate im-

plications for their design. In doing so, the study

makes both theoretical and empirical contributions

to human-computer interaction (HCI) research (Wob-

brock and Kientz, 2016).

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Procedure

This between-participants experiment evaluated the

potential advantages of AR avatars and holograms

over videoconferencing by assigning participants to

one of three conditions: videoconferencing, avatar-

based AR, or hologram-based AR. All participants

completed two conversational tasks within their as-

signed platform—a unidirectional object presentation

and an interactive collaboration—with a remote re-

search confederate as their partner (see section 2.3).

These tasks were conducted in a randomized order.

After completing the tasks, participants exited the

conferencing platform and provided self-report evalu-

ations of both their conversation partner and the com-

munication platform used (see section 2.4).

2.1.1 Object Demonstration Task

This task involved the confederate partner present-

ing and describing a display object to the partici-

pant, allowing us to assess how the platform condi-

tion inﬂuenced the experience of unidirectional in-

structional content and knowledge acquisition. The

object used was a monocular bench microscope, cho-

sen for several reasons. First, it is a plausible tool

for real-world remote work scenarios, such as health

or research training. Second, the participants’ base-

line knowledge of microscopes was sufﬁciently low to

observe potential knowledge gains. Third, the object

allowed for an easily obtainable virtual twin for use

in the avatar condition. Figure 1 shows the physical

microscope used in the videoconferencing and holo-

gram conditions (left) and the virtual model used in

the avatar condition (right).

During the task, the confederate followed a

scripted presentation, raising and turning the object

to provide visual access to its components while nam-

ing and describing their functions. Afterward, partic-

ipants completed two quizzes to measure knowledge

acquisition (see section 2.4.1).

2.1.2 Interactive Collaboration Task

To examine interactive collaboration during conver-

sation sessions, participants worked with the remote

confederate partner to complete a modiﬁed version

of the Desert Survival Problem (Lafferty and Elmers,

1974). This exercise, commonly used in studies on

mediated communication (e.g., (Huang et al., 2002;

Rae et al., 2012)), provides an objective measure of

agreement between discussants. In the standard ver-

sion, team members face a hypothetical plane crash

scenario and must rank the importance of salvaged

items for surviving in a desert environment. Examples

include a magnetic compass, a ﬂashlight, salt tablets,

and a copy of Edible Animals of the Desert.

In this study, participants ﬁrst provided an ini-

tial ranking of 12 items. They then entered their as-

signed remote meeting platform to discuss their rank-

ings with the confederate partner, who had purport-

edly completed their own ranking. During the meet-

ing, the pair compared and debated the rationale be-

hind their rankings. Afterward, participants exited the

platform and submitted a second ranking of the 12

items. Comparing pre- and post-conversation rank-

ings allowed us to evaluate the persuasiveness of the

confederate partner.

As with the object demonstration task, the confed-

erate’s comments were scripted to ensure standard-

ized tone and content. To prevent initial agreement

between participant and confederate rankings from

inﬂuencing subsequent evaluations or rankings, we

adapted a script from Rae et al. (2012). This algo-

rithm ensured the confederate’s rankings consistently

differed from the participant’s. The confederate ex-

plained that they were referencing their own notes,

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

642

Figure 1: Physical and virtual microscopes used in the object demonstration task.

providing a plausible rationale for responses sound-

ing scripted. Additionally, the turn-taking structure

of the script—where the confederate mentioned their

ranking for an item and then inquired about the par-

ticipant’s—ensured controlled dialogue.

2.2 Apparatus

As previously mentioned, three platform con-

ditions—avatars, holograms, and videoconferenc-

ing—were implemented to compare their relative ef-

fects on remote meeting task outcomes and percep-

tions of conversation partners. Figure 2 illustrates

how conversation partners were presented in each

condition.

2.2.1 Avatar Condition

This study utilized the Microsoft Mesh platform (Mi-

crosoft, 2024a) for avatar-based remote meetings.

Participants in this condition wore a HoloLens2 aug-

mented reality headset, which required automatic eye

calibration before launching the Mesh app. Within

the app, participants viewed a virtual stimulus lay-

ered over the ﬂoor of the bare laboratory room. The

confederate partner’s avatar was positioned across a

generic meeting table interface within the AR space.

During the sessions, participants could not see

their own avatar and instead focused solely on the

confederate’s avatar—whose head movements, body

orientation, and arm gestures reﬂected those of the

confederate and whose mouth opened and closed

when the confederate spoke. In the object demon-

stration task, participants were not allowed to touch

or manipulate the virtual microscope model, ensuring

standardized conversation trajectories and consistent

access to the object across all three platform condi-

tions.

2.2.2 Hologram Condition

In the hologram condition, participants used a

HoloLens2 headset to access a proof-of-concept app

developed by Webex Hologram (Webex, 2024b). Af-

ter completing the headset’s automatic eye calibra-

tion, participants opened the app and joined the

confederate partner. Tracking distances were pre-

calibrated by the research team to ensure that the

hologram of the confederate—seated at a similar table

in their own location—appeared directly across from

the participant during the hologram call. The confed-

erate’s movements were captured in real-time using

custom tracking equipment and rendered to the par-

ticipant at 30fps in 720p throughout the conversation

sessions.

2.2.3 Video Condition

The videoconferencing condition utilized the Cisco

Webex platform (Webex, 2024a). Participants ac-

cessed Webex using default settings on a laboratory

laptop, joining a call where the confederate partner

was already present.

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

643

Figure 2: The three platforms compared. The images above are cropped screen captures from the perspective of the participant

in the (a) hologram-based AR meeting, (b) avatar-based AR meeting, and (c) videoconferencing meeting. Note – the same

female graduate assistant served as the confederate conversation partner for all participant study sessions.

2.3 Participants

Participants were recruited through two methods: a

convenience sample from the college’s student re-

search pool and external recruitment via canvassing

ﬂyers. Student participants received course credit,

while non-students were compensated with $50 Ama-

zon gift cards. A total of 30 participants completed

the study, including 4 pilot sessions used to train re-

search staff and reﬁne the procedure. An additional 5

sessions were excluded from the ﬁnal analysis due to

technical issues (e.g., calibration or spatial mapping

errors) that may have interfered with task completion.

This resulted in a ﬁnal sample of 21 participants.

Participant ages ranged from 18 to 32 years (M =

21.46, SD = 3.55). Of the sample, 85% identiﬁed as

female and 15% as male. Regarding education, 38%

had some college experience, 29% held a bachelor’s

degree, 29% had earned a master’s, and 4% held an

advanced graduate degree. The sample reported sig-

niﬁcant experience with media technologies, particu-

larly audio, voice, and video calls, as well as messag-

ing applications. However, experience with console

and PC games varied, and most participants had little

familiarity with commercial VR or AR platforms.

2.4 Measures

To examine the relative advantages of different re-

mote meeting platforms, behavioral and perceptual

outcomes were measured after the completion of the

two conversation tasks.

2.4.1 Task Outcomes

The two conversation tasks—the instructional ob-

ject demonstration and the interactive collaboration

task—allowed us to investigate how the meeting plat-

form inﬂuenced different types of task outcomes.

Knowledge acquisition was assessed follow-

ing the microscope demonstration using two short

quizzes (8 items each). The ﬁrst quiz measured vi-

sual memory by asking participants to correctly label

the microscope’s parts using a provided word bank.

The second quiz assessed semantic memory, requir-

ing participants to match each microscope part to its

function as described by the confederate during the

demonstration.

Persuasiveness was evaluated through the collab-

orative Desert Survival task. By algorithmically set-

ting the confederate’s rankings to differ consistently

from each participant’s baseline rankings, we could

measure persuasiveness based on how closely partic-

ipants’ ﬁnal rankings aligned with the confederate’s

stated preferences. Persuasion scores were calculated

by summing the differences between the participant’s

ﬁnal rankings and the confederate’s rankings for each

survival item. Larger differences indicated that the

participant was less inﬂuenced by the confederate’s

scripted arguments (Lafferty and Elmers, 1974).

2.4.2 Technology Perceptions

We also collected participants’ subjective evaluations

of the technology they each used. This included a

series of 7-point Likert-like questions gauging per-

ceived usefulness of the technology for each of the

tasks completed (object demonstration [M = 4.78, SD

= 1.06, Cronbach’s α = .92], interactive collaboration

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

644

[M = 5.03, SD = 1.27, Cronbach’s α = .96]) and a sin-

gle 7-point Likert-like question each for gauging (3)

perceived ease of use (M = 2.14, SD = 0.96) and (4)

ease of learning to use (M = 1.76, SD = 1.00). In addi-

tion to completing these scaled measures, participants

were also asked to complete open-ended questions in

which they commented on (5) how/if the technology

they used might be incorporated into their daily work

and (6) what other types of tasks or activities might

beneﬁt from the use of that technology.

2.4.3 Partner Perceptions

Finally, participants also reported their subjective

evaluations of their conversation partner. As the same

graduate research assistant served as the confeder-

ate partner relying on a scripted dialogue across all

study sessions, any differences in evaluations may

more readily be attributed to the remote meeting plat-

form used. Evaluations of partners included rating

their perceived credibility. This construct was mea-

sured through the established instrument from Mc-

Croskey and Teven (1999), consisting of a series of

semantic differential items. These items together cap-

ture three distinct dimensions of credibility, including

competence (related to perceived intelligence, train-

ing, and degree to which the individual appears in-

formed; [M = 5.82, SD = 0.59, Cronbach’s α = .71]),

caring/goodwill (or the extent to which the individual

seems sensitive, understanding, or, conversely, self-

centered [M = 3.68, SD = 1.15, Cronbach’s α = .83]),

and trustworthiness (that is, the level to which one

seems genuine, honest, and ethical [M = 4.94, SD =

0.88, Cronbach’s α = .76]).

We also measured participants’ experiences of so-

cial presence during the remote meeting sessions.

This concept has gained traction in both popular

media and promotional materials as ﬁrms market

VR, AR, and other remote technologies (e.g., (Meta,

2021)). Previous research on 3D remote meeting plat-

forms has considered reported levels of social pres-

ence as indicators of system quality (Greenwald et al.,

2017; Jo et al., 2016b; Kim et al., 2018), with re-

cent work calling for multidimensional frameworks of

presence to better address emerging communication

technologies (Cruz et al., 2021). In empirical studies,

”social presence” encompasses various interpersonal

evaluations during mediated communication (Cum-

mings and Wertz, 2018, 2023; Kreijns et al., 2021),

and recent research on social AR has measured mul-

tiple dimensions of the construct (Yoon et al., 2019).

Accordingly, we measured several dimensions of so-

cial presence commonly addressed in the literature

and relevant to perceptions of a remote conversation

partner: salience, perceived actorhood, co-location,

and association (Cummings and Wertz, 2023).

Salience refers to the extent to which another so-

cial entity is detectable or perceptible. It was mea-

sured using the social presence passive interpersonal

scale from Lombard and Ditton (Lombard et al.,

2009) (M = 4.59, SD = 1.41, Cronbach’s α = .78).

Perceived actorhood is the degree to which an-

other party is recognized as a real person with their

own thoughts and feelings. This was assessed with

Bailenson et al.’s instrument (Bailenson et al., 2001)

(M = 4.68, SD = 1.11, Cronbach’s α = .71).

Co-location reﬂects the perception that a remote

other is physically proximate and tangible, align-

ing with corporate messaging about technologies that

evoke “a feeling of being right there with another per-

son” (Meta, 2021). It was measured using Nakanishi

et al.’s instrument (Nakanishi et al., 2008) (M = 4.15,

SD = 1.12, Cronbach’s α = .83).

Association represents a sense of camaraderie, lik-

ing, or afﬁliation with a mediated other. This was cap-

tured using Nowak’s self-reported copresence scale

(Nowak, 2001) (M = 3.83, SD = 1.07, Cronbach’s α =

.83).

Each of these perceptions was measured through

established self-report instruments using multiple 7-

point Likert-type items.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Task Performance

A separate one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

was conducted to test for platform-based differences

in each of the task performance measures. Tests were

run at the 5% signiﬁcance level. Performance on the

object demonstration task was measured via two sep-

arate metrics: the total number of correct answers on

the object labeling quiz and on the object function

quiz. In both cases, participants in the avatar con-

dition produced higher scores on average (M = 8.00,

SD = 1.29; M = 6.29, SD = 1.89) than those in either

the hologram (M = 6.57, SD = 1.99; M = 5.57, SD =

1.13) or videoconferencing conditions (M = 5.86, SD

= 2.27; M = 5.14, SD = 2.19). However, these dif-

ferences were not statistically signiﬁcant (F = 2.32, p

= .13; F = 0.72, p = .50). Persuasion scores did not

differ across platform conditions (F = 0.05, p = .95).

See Figure 3.

3.2 Technology Perceptions

A second series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted

to test for group differences in the perceived useful-

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

645

Figure 3: Task performance by platform.

Figure 4: Technology perceptions by platform.

ness and ease of the various conferencing platforms.

Participants’ perceived usefulness of the platform was

separately evaluated after each of the two conversa-

tional tasks. For the object demonstration task, the

avatar platform (M = 5.45, SD = 0.71) was perceived

as signiﬁcantly more useful than the videoconferenc-

ing platform (M = 3.93, SD = 0.57; F = 5.47, p =

.01), with no signiﬁcant differences between either

condition and the hologram condition (M = 4.95, SD

= 1.22). In contrast, the perceived usefulness of the

platforms did not vary in the context of the Desert

Survival interactive collaboration task (F = 0.26, p =

.77). Additionally, participants reported no signiﬁcant

differences across platforms with respect to perceived

ease of use (F = 1.09, p = .36) or ease to learn (F =

0.75, p = .49). See Figure 4.

3.3 Partner Perceptions

A third series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to

test for differences in users’ partner perceptions based

on platform condition. Participants’ perceived credi-

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

646

Figure 5: Perceived credibility of the confederate partner by platform.

Figure 6: Social presence of the confederate partner by platform.

bility of the confederate partner did not vary with re-

spect to any of the three credibility dimensions: com-

petence (F = 1.34, p = .29), caring/goodwill (F = 0.84,

p = .45), and trustworthiness (F = 2.36, p = .12); see

Figure 5. However, feelings of social presence with

the confederate partner varied as a function of the

platform used for conversations (Figure 6). Speciﬁ-

cally, participants who engaged with the remote con-

federate partner via the hologram platform reported

the partner to be signiﬁcantly more salient (M = 5.57,

SD = 1.40) than did those using avatars (M = 3.60,

SD = 1.03; F = 4.60, p = .02), though no signiﬁ-

cant differences were found between either group and

those individuals using videoconferencing (M = 4.60,

SD = 1.17). Conversely, participants in the hologram

condition reported a signiﬁcantly higher sense of co-

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

647

location with the confederate (M = 4.93, SD = 1.16)

than did those communicating via videoconferencing

(M = 3.46, SD = 0.95; F = 3.85, p = .04), though

neither of these conditions signiﬁcantly differed from

the avatar condition (M = 4.07, SD = 0.84) in this re-

gard. No signiﬁcant differences were observed be-

tween platform conditions with respect to perceived

actorhood (F = 1.70, p = .21) of or feelings of associ-

ation with the confederate (F = 0.10, p = .91).

4 DISCUSSION

In light of accounts of videoconferencing fatigue and

recent advancements in teleconferencing technology,

this study explored the relative advantages of avatar-

and hologram-based platforms for remote meetings.

In addition to comparing these tools to conventional

videoconferencing, the study examined the distinct

beneﬁts each platform may offer depending on the

type of conversational task. Complementing scale

measures of technology and partner perceptions, par-

ticipants’ open-ended responses permitted insight into

the extent to which the two different AR-based plat-

forms replicate or address factors that recent literature

suggests contribute to the interpersonal challenges

associated with negative videoconferencing experi-

ences, such as the conveyance and processing of non-

verbal signals.

Users reported avatars, but not holograms, were

signiﬁcantly more useful for object presentations dur-

ing remote meetings. However, actual knowledge

acquisition scores showed no signiﬁcant differences

across platforms. While platform type had no effect

on the perceived credibility of conversation partners,

it uniquely inﬂuenced different aspects of social pres-

ence. Speciﬁcally, holographic partners were reported

as signiﬁcantly more salient to users than avatars, and

holograms — unlike avatars — elicited heightened

feelings of physical co-location compared to video-

conferencing.

These results highlight the speciﬁc beneﬁts

emerging consumer-facing mixed reality technologies

offer over traditional videoconferencing. They also

provide important insights into the circumstances un-

der which remote meetings may beneﬁt from one type

of digital representation over another.

4.1 The Perceived Usefulness of Avatars

for Object-Focused Exchanges

The differences in subjective evaluations observed in

this study suggest that avatars are particularly suited

for tasks involving object-oriented discussions where

visualization is a key component of the informa-

tion exchange. While this perception was not fully

supported by the learning outcomes of the object

demonstration task (participants in the avatar condi-

tion scored higher on object labeling and function

quizzes, but the differences were not signiﬁcant), this

may be due to a ceiling effect related to the sample

size and the object used. Speciﬁcally, the use of a

familiar object like a microscope may have limited

the ability to detect differences; a wholly novel ob-

ject might better reveal the comparative advantages

of avatars.

Nonetheless, the perceived beneﬁt of avatars was

supported by open-ended participant feedback. Com-

ments highlighted the system’s utility for tasks such

as “explaining details about a device”, providing

“display and explanation”, or showcasing “a model

of an intricate design.” While some participants noted

similar uses for holographic displays, the hologram’s

utility was often qualiﬁed by the level of object com-

plexity. Participants in the hologram condition re-

ported that the platform was useful only if the object

“does not have that many details”, citing issues with

visual quality. Common complaints included that the

hologram’s resolution was “not that clear” and that

the display did not allow them to “see details clearly

during the presentation.”

These visual quality issues may explain the more

mixed perceived usefulness of holograms, especially

for object demonstration tasks. However, the fact

that perceived usefulness for 3D immersive platforms

was only signiﬁcant for object demonstrations—and

not the Desert Survival Task meetings—suggests

that such platforms are beneﬁcial primarily when

communication genuinely requires a sense of three-

dimensional space. This raises the implicit question

for users of platforms rendering conversations in 3D

space: “Why is a sense of space needed?” Object

demonstrations, provided the visual details are clear,

seem to offer a compelling answer. Yet, for now,

avatars appear to be best suited for object-focused

exchanges, at least until holographic communication

can offer similar advantages once visual quality im-

proves.

4.2 AR Holograms Are Effective for

Replicating Face-to-Face

Interpersonal Exchanges

As discussed, holograms may be most effective for

demonstrations involving relatively simple visual ob-

jects with minimal detail until their visual quality im-

proves. However, the primary strength of holograms

compared to avatars or videoconferencing lies in their

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

648

ability to replicate the experience of face-to-face com-

munication. Holograms elicited signiﬁcantly higher

levels of different aspects of social presence com-

pared to the other platforms.

For example, participants in the hologram condi-

tion reported greater feelings of co-location with their

confederate partner than those in the videoconferenc-

ing condition. This aligns with open-ended feed-

back describing the holographic display as “an up-

graded Zoom meeting” that renders real-time feeds

in three dimensions. Additionally, compared to the

avatar condition, participants found their holographic

partners more salient, detecting social cues such as

facial expressions, tone, and nonverbal behaviors

more clearly. Participants suggested that the holo-

gram platform might be particularly beneﬁcial when

a partner “heavily relies on body language.”, whereas

avatars—even those used here, capable of basic fa-

cial tracking and rendering—were perceived as lack-

ing “the human aspect of having a face-to-face con-

versation”.

Holograms appear to offer a closer approxima-

tion of ofﬂine communication by enabling users to

perceive their partners as physically present and ac-

cessible while more easily interpreting conventional

social cues. This suggests that efforts to digitally

replicate the full-body experience of face-to-face in-

teractions may be more effectively supported through

holograms than through avatars or videoconferencing.

4.3 Realistic Mediated Nonverbals –

Especially Facial Expressions –

Matter

The differences in social presence across platforms

appear to stem largely from the availability of nonver-

bal social cues. When represented via an avatar, the

range of social cues a conversation partner can con-

vey is signiﬁcantly reduced compared to face-to-face

communication. Participants in the avatar condition

noted difﬁculties in “capturing the motions and fa-

cial expressions” of others, with some expressing a

preference for seeing “an actual person’s face” and

describing the experience as “a little awkward and

uncomfortable at times.” Similarly, participants in the

videoconferencing condition reported that while “it

was easy to talk virtually and exchange ideas,” they

struggled to “build an emotional connection.” Even

in the hologram condition — which scored highest for

social presence — participants highlighted concerns

over “no eye contact” and identiﬁed “the problem of

eye contact” as an issue that needed to be “solved.”

Thus, across all conditions, participants empha-

sized the importance of clearly perceiving and con-

veying social cues. This aligns with extensive re-

search, beginning with Argyle and Dean in the 1960s,

demonstrating the role of visual cues like eye contact,

gaze, and head movements in fostering perceptions

of intimacy, trust, and connection (Argyle and Dean,

1965; Williams, 1977). More recent studies have sim-

ilarly shown that realistic avatar eye gaze can inﬂu-

ence communication dynamics (Steed and Schroeder,

2015), underscoring the importance of nonverbals

in validating new remote communication platforms

(Colburn et al., 2000; dos Anjos et al., 2019). Al-

though holograms provide better access to these cues

compared to avatars or videoconferencing, they are

evidently still far from replicating the ideal face-to-

face experience.

An ideal remote communication platform would

avoid obscuring facial expressions with avatars nor

headsets, render expressions in high resolution, and

display full body language with a wide ﬁeld of view.

Such a platform could not only enhance social pres-

ence but also signiﬁcantly improve partner credibil-

ity perceptions and persuasive task outcomes. More-

over, it could reduce the cognitive effort required to

send and interpret nonverbal cues, addressing a major

contributor to videoconferencing fatigue (Bailenson,

2021; Li and Yee, 2022).

However, for object-oriented conversations, these

concerns may be less pronounced. Research suggests

that when tasks involve virtual objects, users spend

signiﬁcantly less time focused on a partner’s face

(Hanna and Brennan, 2007). In such cases, lower-

quality holographic displays or avatar-based systems

with limited facial tracking may sufﬁce, as the focus

shifts away from interpersonal dynamics toward the

shared task.

5 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE

DIRECTIONS

As with many laboratory studies, this research faced

certain operational constraints. For example, both the

participant sample and the communication platforms

were relatively limited. While the participants were

generally representative of prospective users in terms

of demographics and prior experience with media

technologies, they were primarily recruited via con-

venience sampling. Additionally, only a single exam-

ple of each platform type—commercial-grade video-

conferencing, avatar AR, and hologram AR—was in-

cluded, which may limit the generalizability of the

ﬁndings (Cummings and Reeves, 2022). User per-

ceptions may also have been inﬂuenced by hardware-

speciﬁc factors beyond the display itself. For in-

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

649

stance, a recent systematic review highlights that the

type of 3D display device (e.g., projector-based vs.

head-mounted) can affect interaction outcomes (Fad-

zli et al., 2021). In turn, future research should adopt

a variable-centered approach (Nass and Mason, 1990)

to identify speciﬁc platform elements—such as res-

olution, visual depth, behavioral realism, or embod-

iment level—that drive observed differences. This

aligns with calls to investigate technological factors

inﬂuencing social presence (Cummings and Wertz,

2018). Additionally, differences in perceived use-

fulness for object demonstrations could be further

explored by assessing knowledge acquisition using

wholly novel artifacts or multiple objects with vary-

ing visual complexity.

Furthermore, though this study focused on AR

avatars rather than VR avatars to avoid confounding

digital representation with environmental settings and

to align with prior research on spatialized conferenc-

ing, future studies could compare AR holograms with

fully virtual avatars and environments, such as those

in Horizon Worlds and other commercial VR plat-

forms.

Thus, while this study provides an initial explo-

ration, future research should investigate whether the

distinct perceived beneﬁts of avatars and holograms

replicate across different participant samples, prod-

ucts, and user conﬁgurations.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Videoconferencing usage is at an all-time high, but it

often leads to fatigue and other limitations compared

to face-to-face communication. This study examined

how visual displays in emerging immersive remote

meeting platforms—avatar-based AR and hologram-

based AR—may reproduce or mitigate these issues.

The ﬁndings highlight distinct advantages for each

platform: avatars excel in object-centered exchanges

but may cause confusion or distraction in non-object-

focused conversations, while holograms more closely

simulate face-to-face interactions by enhancing social

presence with one’s partner.

In turn, when selecting enterprise software

for remote meetings, institutions and employees

should choose platforms based on the meeting’s fo-

cus—avatars for tasks centered on presented materials

and holograms for interactions emphasizing interper-

sonal connection. However, both platforms currently

offer limited capabilities for perceiving and convey-

ing nonverbal information, a concern that may be al-

leviated as holographic technologies advance in reso-

lution and ﬁeld of view.

As these technologies evolve, academic and in-

dustry research should further explore how the inter-

action between technology and task shapes the rela-

tive advantages of avatars and holograms, providing

clearer guidance for their optimal use in remote com-

munication settings.

REFERENCES

Argyle, M. and Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and

afﬁliation. Sociometry, 28(3):289.

Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical

argument for the causes of zoom fatigue. Technology,

Mind, and Behavior, 2(1).

Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., and Loomis,

J. M. (2001). Equilibrium theory revisited: Mutual gaze

and personal space in virtual environments. Presence:

Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(6):583–598.

Bergmann, R., Rintel, S., Baym, N., Sarkar, A., Borowiec,

D., Wong, P., and Sellen, A. (2022). Meeting (the) pan-

demic: Videoconferencing fatigue and evolving tensions

of sociality in enterprise video meetings during covid-

19. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

32(2):347–383.

Beyea, D., Lim, C., Lover, A., Foxman, M., Ratan, R.,

and Leith, A. (2025). Zoom fatigue in review: A meta-

analytical examination of videoconferencing fatigue’s

antecedents. Computers in Human Behavior Reports,

17:100571.

Choudhary, Z., Gottsacker, M., Kim, K., Schubert, R., Ste-

fanucci, J., Bruder, G., and Welch, G. F. (2021). Revis-

iting distance perception with scaled embodied cues in

social virtual reality. In 2021 IEEE Virtual Reality and

3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE.

Colburn, A., Cohen, M. F., and Drucker, S. (2000). The role

of eye gaze in avatar mediated conversational interfaces.

Microsoft Research, (MSR-TR-2000-81).

Cruz, A., Paredes, H., Morgado, L., and Martins, P. (2021).

Non-verbal aspects of collaboration in virtual worlds: a

CSCW taxonomy-development proposal integrating the

presence dimension. JUCS - Journal of Universal Com-

puter Science, 27(9):913–954.

Cummings, J. J. and Reeves, B. (2022). Stimulus sampling

and research integrity. In Research Integrity, pages 203–

223. Oxford University Press.

Cummings, J. J. and Wertz, B. (2018). Technological pre-

dictors of social presence: A foundation for a meta-

analytic review and empirical concept explication. In

Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Workshop

on Presence (Prague).

Cummings, J. J. and Wertz, E. E. (2023). Capturing social

presence: concept explication through an empirical anal-

ysis of social presence measures. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 28(1):zmac027.

dos Anjos, R. K., Sousa, M., Mendes, D., Medeiros, D.,

Billinghurst, M., Anslow, C., and Jorge, J. (2019). Ad-

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

650

ventures in hologram space: Exploring the design space

of eye-to-eye volumetric telepresence. In 25th ACM

Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology.

ACM.

Fadzli, F. E., Nor’a, M. N. A., and Ismail, A. W. (2021).

3d display for 3d telepresence: A review. International

Journal of Innovative Computing, 12(1):1–7.

Fauville, G., Luo, M., Queiroz, A. C., Bailenson, J. N., and

Hancock, J. (2021). Zoom exhaustion & fatigue scale.

Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 4:100119.

Ferrer, C. D. R. and Fujiwara, T. (2022). Work-in-

progress—avatar vs teams: Co-presence and visual be-

havior in a videoconference cooperative task. In 2022

8th International Conference of the Immersive Learning

Research Network (iLRN). IEEE.

Fini, R. (1993). Video teleconferencing and the integra-

tion of effective communications systems. In Proceed-

ings Professional Communication Conference The New

Face of Technical Communication: People, Processes,

Products’, pages 417–421.

Gaver, W. W. (1992). The affordances of media spaces for

collaboration. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Confer-

ence on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW

’92, page 17–24, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Google (2024). Project starline.

Greenwald, S. W., Wang, Z., Funk, M., and Maes, P.

(2017). Investigating social presence and communica-

tion with embodied avatars in room-scale virtual reality.

In Communications in Computer and Information Sci-

ence, pages 75–90. Springer International Publishing.

Hanna, J. E. and Brennan, S. E. (2007). Speakers’ eye gaze

disambiguates referring expressions early during face-to-

face conversation. Journal of Memory and Language,

57(4):596–615.

Harrison, S. and Dourish, P. (1996). Re-place-ing space:

The roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In

Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer

Supported Cooperative Work, CSCW ’96, page 67–76,

New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Ma-

chinery.

Hauber, J., Regenbrecht, H., Billinghurst, M., and Cock-

burn, A. (2006). Spatiality in videoconferencing. In

Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on

Computer supported cooperative work. ACM.

He, L., Liu, K., He, Z., and Cao, L. (2023). Three-

dimensional holographic communication system for the

metaverse. Optics Communications, 526:128894.

Heidicker, P., Langbehn, E., and Steinicke, F. (2017). Inﬂu-

ence of avatar appearance on presence in social VR. In

2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI).

IEEE.

Hirschbuhl, J. J. (1980). Hardware considerations for com-

puter based education in the 1980’s. Journal of Research

and Development in Education, 14(1):41–56.

Hirskyj-Douglas, I., Kantosalo, A., Monroy-Hern

andez, A.,

Zimmermann, J., Nebeling, M., and Gonzalez-Franco,

M. (2020). Social ar: Reimagining and interrogating the

role of augmented reality in face to face social interac-

tions. In Conference Companion Publication of the 2020

on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social

Computing, CSCW ’20 Companion, page 457–465, New

York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Hove, D. P. and Watson, B. (2023). The Shortcomings of

Video Conferencing Technology, Methods for Revealing

Them, and Emerging XR Solutions. PRESENCE: Virtual

and Augmented Reality, pages 1–29.

Hsiao, C.-F., Lee, C.-H., Chen, C.-Y., and Chang, T.-W.

(2022). An approach of holographic technology for the

practical distance education. In Learning and Collabo-

ration Technologies. Novel Technological Environments,

pages 61–70. Springer International Publishing.

Huang, W., Olson, J. S., and Olson, G. M. (2002). Camera

angle affects dominance in video-mediated communica-

tion. In CHI '02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors

in Computing Systems. ACM.

Inkpen, K. M. and Sedlins, M. (2011). Me and my

avatar: Exploring users’ comfort with avatars for work-

place communication. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work,

CSCW ’11, page 383–386, New York, NY, USA. Asso-

ciation for Computing Machinery.

Iqbal, M. (2023). Zoom revenue and usage statistics. Busi-

ness of Apps.

Jo, D., Kim, K.-H., and Kim, G. J. (2016a). Effects of avatar

and background representation forms to co-presence in

mixed reality (mr) tele-conference systems. In SIG-

GRAPH ASIA 2016 Virtual Reality Meets Physical Real-

ity: Modelling and Simulating Virtual Humans and Envi-

ronments, SA ’16, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Jo, D., Kim, K.-H., and Kim, G. J. (2016b). Effects of avatar

and background representation forms to co-presence in

mixed reality (MR) tele-conference systems. In SIG-

GRAPH ASIA 2016 Virtual Reality meets Physical Real-

ity: Modelling and Simulating Virtual Humans and En-

vironments. ACM.

Kim, K., Boelling, L., Haesler, S., Bailenson, J., Bruder, G.,

and Welch, G. F. (2018). Does a digital assistant need

a body? the inﬂuence of visual embodiment and social

behavior on the perception of intelligent virtual agents in

AR. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed

and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE.

Kreijns, K., Xu, K., and Weidlich, J. (2021). Social pres-

ence: Conceptualization and measurement. Educational

Psychology Review, 34(1):139–170.

Kuster, C., Ranieri, N., Agustina, Zimmer, H., Bazin, J.,

Sun, C., Popa, T., and Gross, M. (2012). Towards next

generation 3d teleconferencing systems. In 2012 3DTV-

Conference: The True Vision - Capture, Transmission

and Display of 3D Video (3DTV-CON). IEEE.

Lafferty, J. and Elmers, P. E. J. (1974). The desert survival

problem. Experimental Learning Methods.

Li, B. B. J. and Yee, A. Z. (2022). Understanding video-

conference fatigue: a systematic review of dimensions,

antecedents and theories. Internet Research, (ahead-of-

print).

Showing, Telling, and Collaborating: Investigating the Relative Beneﬁts of Videoconferencing and Different Augmented Reality

Embodiments for Remote Meetings

651

Lombard, M., Ditton, T. B., and Weinstein, L. (2009). Mea-

suring presence: the temple presence inventory. In Pro-

ceedings of the 12th Annual International Workshop on

Presence, pages 1–15.

Ludwig, T., Stickel, O., Tolmie, P., and Sellmer, M. (2021).

shARe-IT: Ad hoc remote troubleshooting through aug-

mented reality. Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW), 30(1):119–167.

Luo, Y., Ahn, S., Abbas, A., Seo, J., Cha, S. H., and Kim,

J. I. (2023). Investigating the impact of scenario and

interaction ﬁdelity on training experience when design-

ing immersive virtual reality-based construction safety

training. Developments in the Built Environment, page

100223.

McCroskey, J. C. and Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A re-

examination of the construct and its measurement. Com-

munication Monographs, 66(1):90–103.

Meta (2021). Tech at meta: Our vision of for the metaverse.

Connect 2021.

Meta (2024). Horizon worlds.

Microsoft (2024a). Microsoft mesh.

Microsoft (2024b). Microsoft teams.

Nakanishi, H., Murakami, Y., Nogami, D., and Ishiguro, H.

(2008). Minimum movement matters. In Proceedings of

the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported coop-

erative work. ACM.

Nass, C. I. and Mason, L. (1990). On th study of technology

and task: A variable-based approach. In Organization

and Communication Technology., pages 46–67. Sage.

Nesher Shoshan, H. and Wehrt, W. (2022). Understand-

ing “zoom fatigue”: A mixed-method approach. Applied

Psychology, 71(3):827–852.

Nowak, K. (2001). Deﬁning and differentiating copresence,

social presence and presence as transportation. In Pres-

ence 2001 conference, Philadelphia, PA, volume 2, pages

686–710. Citeseer.

Pan, Y. and Steed, A. (2016). A comparison of avatar-,

video-, and robot-mediated interaction on users’ trust in

expertise. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 3.

Pejsa, T., Kantor, J., Benko, H., Ofek, E., and Wilson, A.

(2016). Room2room. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM

Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work

& Social Computing. ACM.

Pettit, J. D., Bowman, J. P., Branchaw, B., Greenbaum, H.,

Grubb, L., Lahiff, J. M., Penrose, J. M., Sharbrough, W.,

Sigband, N. B., Vik, G. N., Wolf, M. P., Limaye, M.,

Insley, R., Reinsch, L., and Smeltzer, L. (1988). Topics

for business communication research. The Bulletin of the

Association for Business Communication, 51(2):32–39.

uss, C., Ranieri, N., Bazin, J.-C., Martin, T., Laffont, P.-

Y., Popa, T., and Gross, M. (2016). An immersive bidi-

rectional system for life-size 3d communication. In Pro-

ceedings of the 29th International Conference on Com-

puter Animation and Social Agents. ACM.

Rae, I., Takayama, L., and Mutlu, B. (2012). One of the

gang. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Hu-

man Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.

Ratan, R., Miller, D. B., and Bailenson, J. N. (2022). Facial

appearance dissatisfaction explains differences in zoom

fatigue. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-

working, 25(2):124–129.

Shami, N. S., Cheng, L.-T., Rohall, S., Sempere, A., and

Patterson, J. (2010). Avatars meet meetings. In Pro-

ceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on

Supporting group work - GROUP '10. ACM Press.

Steed, A. and Schroeder, R. (2015). Collaboration in im-

mersive and non-immersive virtual environments. In Im-

mersed in Media, pages 263–282. Springer.

Su, X., Cao, J., and Hui, P. (2020). 5g edge enhanced mo-

bile augmented reality. In Proceedings of the 26th An-

nual International Conference on Mobile Computing and

Networking. ACM.

Tanaka, K., Nakanishi, H., and Ishiguro, H. (2014). Com-

paring video, avatar, and robot mediated communication:

Pros and cons of embodiment. In Collaboration Tech-

nologies and Social Computing, pages 96–110. Springer

Berlin Heidelberg.

Tanaka, K., Onoue, S., Nakanishi, H., and Ishiguro, H.

(2013). Motion is enough: How real-time avatars im-

prove distant communication. In 2013 International

Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems

(CTS). IEEE.

Tjostheim, I. and Waterworth, J. A. (2022). When the Vir-

tual Becomes Real?, pages 129–147. Springer Interna-

tional Publishing, Cham.

van Dijk, J. (2022). Zooming in on embodied social sense-

making: Mapping the design space in the context of

videoconferencing. In Sixteenth International Confer-

ence on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction,

TEI ’22, New York, NY, USA. Association for Comput-

ing Machinery.

Webex (2024a). Webex.

Webex (2024b). Webex hologram.

Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-

face and mediated communication: A review. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 84(5):963–976.

Wobbrock, J. O. and Kientz, J. A. (2016). Research con-

tributions in human-computer interaction. Interactions,

23(3):38–44.

Yang, C.-L. (2021). Understanding and reducing perception

gaps with mediated social cues when building workplace

relationships through cmc. In Companion Publication

of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Coop-

erative Work and Social Computing, CSCW ’21, page

303–306, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-

puting Machinery.

Yoon, B., il Kim, H., Lee, G. A., Billinghurst, M., and Woo,

W. (2019). The effect of avatar appearance on social

presence in an augmented reality remote collaboration.

In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User

Interfaces (VR). IEEE.

HUCAPP 2025 - 9th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction Theory and Applications

652