pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.17240 · v2 · pith:JEK3K6E3new · submitted 2026-01-24 · 💻 cs.HC

Exploring Needs and Design Opportunities for Proactive Information Support in In-Person Small-Group Conversations

Shaoze Zhou , Diana Nelly Rivera Rodriguez , Pedro Remior , Joaquin Frangi , Lingyao Li , Renkai Ma , Janet G. Johnson , Christine Lisetti
show 1 more author
Chen Chen
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 15:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords mixed realityproactive information supportsmall-group conversationsparticipatory designtechnology probesfocus groupshuman-computer interactionAI agents
0
0 comments X

The pith

A qualitative study with ten participants identifies design opportunities for using mixed reality to deliver proactive information during in-person small-group conversations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

In-person small-group conversations demand full real-time attention and quick reading of cues with no room for revision or editing. The paper examines how mixed reality might supply proactive information to ease these demands and help people contribute more effectively. Through focus groups and two technology probes, the authors gather insights from ten participants to pinpoint ways to maximize the benefits of such support and to design the information itself. A sympathetic reader would care because the results aim to guide the creation of future proactive AI agents for augmented everyday conversations.

Core claim

A preliminary participatory design and qualitative study with N=10 participants, employing focus groups and two technology probes, reveals key design opportunities for how to maximize the benefits of proactive information support and how to effectively design such supporting information for mixed-reality systems in in-person small-group conversations.

What carries the argument

Participatory design using focus groups and technology probes to surface needs around proactive information delivery in mixed reality.

If this is right

  • Design principles derived from the study can directly inform the development of proactive AI agents for augmented conversation experiences.
  • Supporting information must be crafted to fit seamlessly into the flow of real-time group talk without requiring extra attention.
  • Maximizing benefits requires balancing relevance, timing, and non-disruptive presentation of the supplied information.
  • The identified opportunities apply specifically to in-person settings where nonverbal cues and immediate participation matter most.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar design opportunities could apply to hybrid or virtual meetings where real-time support might reduce cognitive load.
  • Longer-term deployments of the proposed mixed-reality tools would likely surface additional issues around privacy and information accuracy.
  • The work connects to broader questions of how AI can interpret conversation context to decide what information to surface proactively.

Load-bearing premise

Qualitative insights from ten participants in focus groups and short technology probes will generalize to guide robust design principles for mixed-reality systems in varied real-world conversations and populations.

What would settle it

A larger study in actual in-person small-group settings that finds users do not want or benefit from the specific forms of proactive information support identified in the probes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17240 by Chen Chen, Christine Lisetti, Diana Nelly Rivera Rodriguez, Janet G. Johnson, Joaquin Frangi, Lingyao Li, Pedro Remior, Renkai Ma, Shaoze Zhou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In-person small-group conversation experiences enabled by prototyped technology probes; (a) a third-person view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Participants’ demographics. We used & and # as superscripts in participant ID to denote MR users in Phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In-person small-group conversations play a crucial role in everyday life; however, facilitating effective group interaction can be challenging, as the real-time nature demands full attention, offers no opportunity for revision, and requires interpreting non-verbal cues. Using Mixed Reality to provide proactive information support shows promise in helping individuals engage in and contribute to group conversations. We present a preliminary participatory design and qualitative study (N = 10) using focus groups and two technology probes to explore the opportunities of designing proactive information support in in-person small-group conversations. We reveal key design opportunities concerning how to maximize the benefits of proactive information support and how to effectively design such supporting information. Our study is crucial for paving the way toward designing future proactive AI agents to enable the paradigm of augmented in-person small-group conversation experience.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports a preliminary participatory design study (N=10) that uses focus groups and two technology probes to investigate user needs and design opportunities for proactive Mixed Reality information support during in-person small-group conversations. It identifies opportunities for maximizing the benefits of such support and for designing the supporting information itself, framing the work as foundational for future proactive AI agents that augment real-world group interactions.

Significance. If the reported design opportunities hold, the work offers modest but useful early-stage guidance for HCI researchers designing MR systems to support social conversation. The participatory approach with probes is well-suited to generating concrete design ideas at this stage, and the emphasis on real-time, attention-preserving support addresses a recognized challenge in group settings.

major comments (1)
  1. [Methods / Analysis] The manuscript provides no description of the qualitative analysis procedures, coding scheme, or how themes were derived from the focus-group transcripts and probe feedback. This absence directly affects the credibility of the central claim that specific design opportunities were revealed, as readers cannot assess how the raw participant data led to the reported findings.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the exploratory, non-generalizable scope of the N=10 sample to avoid implying broader applicability than the study design supports.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recommending minor revision. We value the positive assessment of the study's significance for early-stage guidance in MR-supported group conversations. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to improve transparency.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Analysis] The manuscript provides no description of the qualitative analysis procedures, coding scheme, or how themes were derived from the focus-group transcripts and probe feedback. This absence directly affects the credibility of the central claim that specific design opportunities were revealed, as readers cannot assess how the raw participant data led to the reported findings.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would be strengthened by an explicit description of the qualitative analysis. In the revised version we will add a dedicated 'Data Analysis' subsection to the Methods. This will detail that two researchers reviewed the focus-group transcripts and probe-session notes, applied inductive open coding to surface participant needs and reactions, then iteratively clustered codes into themes through team discussion until consensus. We will summarize the resulting coding scheme, provide brief examples of code-to-theme progression, and explicitly link the derived themes to the two categories of design opportunities reported. This addition will allow readers to trace the findings back to the raw data without changing the study design or results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper is a preliminary qualitative HCI study (N=10) that collects and interprets participant feedback from focus groups and technology probes to identify design opportunities for proactive MR information support. No equations, fitted parameters, derivations, or self-referential reductions appear in the provided text or abstract; all claims rest directly on the empirical data gathered rather than on any construction that loops back to prior fitted quantities or self-citations. The central contribution of revealing design opportunities is therefore self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard HCI domain assumptions about the value of small-scale qualitative user studies for surfacing design opportunities rather than introducing new mathematical parameters or postulated entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Qualitative feedback from a small number of participants in focus groups and technology probes can reveal generalizable design opportunities for future mixed-reality systems
    This premise underpins the extraction of key design opportunities from the N=10 sessions described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5690 in / 1262 out tokens · 129484 ms · 2026-05-21T15:35:24.957738+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Pro$^2$Assist: Continuous Step-Aware Proactive Assistance with Multimodal Egocentric Perception for Long-Horizon Procedural Tasks

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Pro²Assist uses multimodal egocentric perception from AR glasses to track fine-grained progress in long-horizon procedural tasks and deliver timely proactive assistance, outperforming baselines by over 21% in action u...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    http://fac-staff.seattleu.edu/ thompson/web/communication/communication_skills_inventory.pdf Accessed on January 8, 2026

    2002.Interpersonal-Communication-Skills-Inventory. http://fac-staff.seattleu.edu/ thompson/web/communication/communication_skills_inventory.pdf Accessed on January 8, 2026

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4o-mini Ac- cessed on January 21, 2026

    2024.GPT-4o-mini. https://platform.openai.com/docs/models/gpt-4o-mini Ac- cessed on January 21, 2026

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Allen, C.I

    J.E. Allen, C.I. Guinn, and E. Horvtz. 1999. Mixed-initiative interaction.IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications14, 5 (1999), 14–23. https://doi.org/10. 1109/5254.796083

    work page arXiv 1999

  4. [4]

    Cigdem Beyan, Alessandro Vinciarelli, and Alessio Del Bue. 2023. Co-Located Human–Human Interaction Analysis Using Nonverbal Cues: A Survey.ACM Comput. Surv.56, 5, Article 109 (Nov. 2023), 41 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3626516

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Millard J Bienvenu Sr. 1971. An interpersonal communication inventory.Journal of communication21, 4 (1971), 381–388

    work page 1971

  6. [6]

    Susanne Bødker and Morten Kyng. 2018. Participatory Design that Mat- ters—Facing the Big Issues.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 1, Article 4 (Feb. 2018), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152421

    work page doi:10.1145/3152421 2018

  7. [7]

    Lenore A Boyd and Arthur J Roach. 1977. Interpersonal communication skills differentiating more satisfying from less satisfying marital relationships.Journal of Counseling Psychology24, 6 (1977), 540

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Chen Chen, Cuong Nguyen, Jane Hoffswell, Jennifer Healey, Trung Bui, and Nadir Weibel. 2023. PaperToPlace: Transforming Instruction Documents into Spatialized and Context-Aware Mixed Reality Experiences. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(San Francisco, CA, USA)(UIST ’23). Association for Computing Mac...

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606832 2023

  10. [10]

    Gus Cooney, Adam M Mastroianni, Nicole Abi-Esber, and Alison Wood Brooks

    work page

  11. [11]

    Current Opinion in Psychology31 (2020), 22–27

    The many minds problem: disclosure in dyadic versus group conversation. Current Opinion in Psychology31 (2020), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc. 2019.06.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.copsyc 2020

  12. [12]

    Nils Dahlbäck, Arne Jönsson, and Lars Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz studies: why and how. InProceedings of the 1st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces(Orlando, Florida, USA)(IUI ’93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/169891.169968

    work page doi:10.1145/169891.169968 1993

  13. [13]

    Yuichiro Fujimoto. 2025. ChatAR: Conversation Support using Large Language Model and Augmented Reality. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.16008 arXiv:2506.16008 [cs.HC]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.16008 2025

  14. [14]

    Daniel Gatica-Perez. 2006. Analyzing Group Interactions in Conversations: a Re- view. In2006 IEEE International Conference on Multisensor Fusion and Integration for Intelligent Systems. 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/MFI.2006.265658

    work page doi:10.1109/mfi.2006.265658 2006

  15. [15]

    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA)(CHI ’99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303030

    work page doi:10.1145/302979.303030 1999

  16. [16]

    Ross, Dario Andres Silva Moran, Gabriel Enrique Gonzalez, Siya Kunde, Morgan A

    Stephanie Houde, Kristina Brimijoin, Michael Muller, Steven I. Ross, Dario Andres Silva Moran, Gabriel Enrique Gonzalez, Siya Kunde, Morgan A. Foreman, and Justin D. Weisz. 2025. Controlling AI Agent Participation in Group Conversations: A Human-Centered Approach. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25)....

    work page doi:10.1145/3708359.3712089 2025

  17. [17]

    Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Björn Eiderbäck. 2003. Technol- ogy probes: inspiring design for and with families. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing System...

    work page doi:10.1145/642611.642616 2003

  18. [18]

    2024.Meta Quest 3S

    Meta Inc. 2024.Meta Quest 3S. https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-3s Accessed on January 18, 2026

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Shivesh Jadon, Mehrad Faridan, Edward Mah, Rajan Vaish, Wesley Willett, and Ryo Suzuki. 2024. Augmented Conversation with Embedded Speech-Driven On-the-Fly Referencing in AR. arXiv:2405.18537 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2405.18537

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Johnson, Macarena Peralta, Mansanjam Kaur, Ruijie Sophia Huang, Sheng Zhao, Ruijia Guan, Shwetha Rajaram, and Michael Nebeling

    Janet G. Johnson, Macarena Peralta, Mansanjam Kaur, Ruijie Sophia Huang, Sheng Zhao, Ruijia Guan, Shwetha Rajaram, and Michael Nebeling. 2025. Ex- ploring Collaborative GenAI Agents in Synchronous Group Settings: Elicit- ing Team Perceptions and Design Considerations for the Future of Work. arXiv:2504.14779 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14779

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    2010.Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction

    Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2010.Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley Publishing

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Joanne Leong, John Tang, Edward Cutrell, Sasa Junuzovic, Gregory Paul Baribault, and Kori Inkpen. 2024. Dittos: Personalized, Embodied Agents That Participate in Meetings When You Are Unavailable.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW2, Article 494 (Nov. 2024), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687033

    work page doi:10.1145/3687033 2024

  23. [23]

    Xingyu Bruce Liu, Shitao Fang, Weiyan Shi, Chien-Sheng Wu, Takeo Igarashi, and Xiang ’Anthony’ Chen. 2025. Proactive Conversational Agents with Inner Thoughts. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 184, 19 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/37...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713760 2025

  24. [24]

    2025.Azure Speech Service

    Microsoft. 2025.Azure Speech Service. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ ai-services/speech-service/ Accessed on November 17, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Muller and Sarah Kuhn

    Michael J. Muller and Sarah Kuhn. 1993. Participatory design.Commun. ACM 36, 6 (jun 1993), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/153571.255960

    work page doi:10.1145/153571.255960 1993

  26. [26]

    Cuong Nguyen, Trung Huu Bui, Jennifer Healey, Jane Elizabeth Hoffswell, and Chen Chen. 2025. Rendering and anchoring instructional data in augmented reality with context awareness. US Patent App. 18/125,889

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Norman and Stephen W

    Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper. 1986.User Centered System Design; New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., USA

    work page 1986

  28. [28]

    2025.When You’re Better At Group Conversations Than Talking One-On-One

    Succeed Socially. 2025.When You’re Better At Group Conversations Than Talking One-On-One. https://www.succeedsocially.com/oneononeharder Accessed on December 2, 2025

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Katherine Qianwen Sun and Michael L Slepian. 2020. The conversations we seek to avoid.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes160 (2020), 87–105

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Bufang Yang, Yunqi Guo, Lilin Xu, Zhenyu Yan, Hongkai Chen, Guoliang Xing, and Xiaofan Jiang. 2025. SocialMind: LLM-based Proactive AR Social Assistive System with Human-like Perception for In-situ Live Interactions.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.9, 1, Article 23 (March 2025), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3712286

    work page doi:10.1145/3712286 2025

  31. [31]

    2021.Group Conversations: Why are they so difficult?https: //www.tribeless.co/blog/group-conversations-why-are-they-difficult Accessed on January 21, 2026

    Wong Gwen Yi. 2021.Group Conversations: Why are they so difficult?https: //www.tribeless.co/blog/group-conversations-why-are-they-difficult Accessed on January 21, 2026

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Shizhen Zhang, Shengxin Li, and Quan Li. 2025. Understood: Real-Time Com- munication Support for Adults with ADHD Using Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Busan, South Korea)(UIST ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 205, 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.114...

    work page doi:10.1145/3746059.3747602 2025