Zero Mean Lag Communication Over Networks: A Route to Co-Presence?

Fred Cummins
University College, Dublin, Ireland

Jonathan Byrne
University College, Dublin, Ireland

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: Proceedings from the 3rd European Symposium on Multimodal Communication, Dublin, September 17-18, 2015

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 105:4, s. 19-23

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2016-09-16

ISBN: 978-91-7685-679-6

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


We contrast two ways of thinking about communication: communication as message passing, and communication as reciprocal coordination. From the invention of writing to the ubiquity of SMS, speech and language technology has uniformly employed the first model, and thereby done nothing to support, extend, or explore the second model. We suggest that the coordinative approach is better suited to understanding how face to face interactants establish co-presence. The technical challenges of establishing co-presence amounts to achieving synchronisation with a mean lag of 0 ms. We suggest that this goal might be approached through the exploitation of predictive models for behaviours that are inherently constrained, or known to both parties. Although we have not yet succeeded in achieving this goal, we chart a possible route of future exploration, with the distal goal of allowing people to engage in strongly synchronised behaviours such as chanting over networks.


co-presence, reciprocal interaction, liveness


[1] M. Ratcliffe, “Touch and situatedness,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 299–322, 2008.

[2] W. J. Ong, Orality and literacy. Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1982.

[3] F. Cummins, “The remarkable unremarkableness of joint speech,” in Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, 2014, pp. 73–77.

[4] F. Cummins, “Voice, (inter-) subjectivity, and real time recurrent interaction,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, 2014.

[5] F. Cummins, “Towards an enactive account of action: speaking and joint speaking as exemplary domains,” Adaptive Behavior, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 178–186, 2013.

[6] Recommendation ITU-T G.114 One-Way Transmission Time, Int’l Telecommunication Union Std., 1996.

[7] R. Schechner, Environmental Theater. New York: Applause Theatre and Cinema Books, 1994.

[8] L. Noy, E. Dekel, and U. Alon, “The mirror game as a paradigm for studying the dynamics of two people improvising motion together,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 108, no. 52, pp. 20 947–20 952, 2011.

[9] Y. Hart, L. Noy, R. Feniger-Schaal, A. E. Mayo, and U. Alon,“Individuality and togetherness in joint improvised motion,” PloS One, vol. 9, no. 2, p. e87213, 2014.

[10] F. Weichert, D. Bachmann, B. Rudak, and D. Fisseler, “Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller,” Sensors, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 6380–6393, 2013.

[11] J. Laroche, A. M. Berardi, and E. Brangier, “Embodiment of intersubjective time: relational dynamics as attractors in the temporal coordination of interpersonal behaviors and experiences,” Frontiers in psychology, vol. 5, 2014.

Citeringar i Crossref