Video meeting signals: Experimental evidence for a technique to improve the experience of video conferencing

Paul D. Hills; Mackenzie V. Q. Clavin; Miles R. A. Tufft; Matthias S. Gobel; Daniel C. Richardson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270399

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 13, 2021
12 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Filomena Papa, Editor PONE-D-21-12225 Video Meeting Signals: A randomised controlled trial of a technique to improve the experience of video conferencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Richardson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. It is requested to (see the enclosed comments): -provide further details about VMS i.e. about the selection of gestures presented in figure1; -describe the theoretical reference model adopted for the controlled trial to test efficacy of VMS; -clarify how the themes included in the survey (group affiliation, the learning outcomes of that seminar and the mechanics of the seminar interaction) were selected; -clarify all variables of the trial: the manipulated/independent variable (e.g. VMS training or not), controlled variables, dependent variables (e.g. themes included in the survey); -describe how were constructed the scales used for measurements of the themes; - justify the apparent lack of a proper control condition; - clarify if either group used the "emoticons" and/or the VMS gestures; - specify if the authors also looked at the text-chat during the session and if this is included in the lexical analysis. Moreover, a careful revision of the manuscript format is requested to improve the readability: the order of the sections of the manuscript ( e.g. Introduction, Method , Results, Discussion, Conclusions), the reference format as required by the journal. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Filomena Papa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The manuscript needs some clarifications. More details about how the VMS gestures were selected should be provided to the readers.The theoretical reference model adopted in the design the controlled trial and the criteria adopted for selection of the themes included in the survey (group affiliation, the learning outcomes of that seminar and the mechanics of the seminar interaction) need to be described including the appropriate references. The controlled trial design needs to be clarified identifying all trial variables: the manipulated/independent variable (e.g. VMS training or not), controlled variables, dependent variables (e.g. themes included in the survey). The procedure used for construction of scales used for measurement of the themes has to be described mentioning the relevant references. Finally, the format of the manuscript has to be reviewed to improve readability and according to the format required by the journal (e. g. order of sections, references). Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option. 5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 6. We note that Figure 1 includes an image of a participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: In the manuscript, "Video Meeting Signals: A Randomized Control Trial of a Technique to Improve the Experience of Video Conferencing," the authors trained a group of participants on the VMS(tm) system or provided no training. Participants assigned to the VMS group learned a set of (9) gestures to implement during their online Zoom classes. Participants interactions were annotated and transcribed in Zoom, and participants were asked to complete a post-seminar survey at the end of each class session. Survey questions were grouped into four themes (i.e., group affiliation, learning outcomes, personal experience, seminar mechanics). Two analyses were conducted (1) survey response data and (2) linguistic content from transcripts. Findings suggested that participants assigned to the VMS training had an overall better experience in the Zoom meeting that participants not assigned to the training group - both in the survey and more positively valanced language used in the transcript. Overall, the manuscript was easy to read, clear, and to the point. It seems, based on the results from the data, the VMS system has a positive impact on participant performance. As the authors suggest, they are not able to extrapolate why the VMS system works, but they argue that implementing this type of gestural system in video meetings might be very helpful. I am inclined to agree, but I have a few questions and suggestions for the authors to add to the manuscript to clarify the importance and impact of such a gestural system. Though the authors show clear differences in the two groups, it is not clear if either group used the "emoticons" and/or the VMS gestures. Is it possible for the authors to descriptively provide this data? Adding the frequency at which emoticons are used in the Zoom session and the rate at which gestures naturally (and post-training) occurred in either setting is also needed to fully understand the impact of the training. Also, did the authors also look at the text-chat during the session and is this included in the lexical analysis? The finding is simple and preliminary, but I appreciate the authors mention of this, as to not oversell the product. Other than the request for extra detail on the use of the emoticons and gestures, I have no major concerns for the manuscript. Reviewer #2: The manuscript reports a study in which over 100 students were trained with gestural signals for use in online seminar sessions taking place over two consecutive weeks. The students then completed several questionnaires evaluating the rapport with their seminar group, their personal experience, learning outcomes, the mechanics if their interactions, as well as the valence of utterances they made during the interactions. The group was compared on these measures to a group that did not receive the gestural signaling training. The measures showed that the group who received the training scored higher on the questionnaire measures and that the valence of their utterances were more positive. The reported study addresses a research question of great significance in current times, namely how online/video-communication platforms like Zoom can be improved to allow for more effective and pleasant interactions. There are several things I like about this study, but also some points that give me concern. Positive points are the number of participants, which is a decent sample size for meaningful analyses of psychometric/social questionnaire measures. Also positive is the use of advanced statistics, including Bayesian techniques. The manuscript is clearly written and easy to read. My main point of concern is the apparent lack of a proper control condition. Unless I missed it or misunderstood, it sounds like the control group just received no treatment at all. If this is indeed the case, then any effects measured may be attributable to a pure placebo effect. Such an effect could emerge from the control group’s knowledge that they did receive some form of training that was meant to influence interactions, or even simply because they had experienced an additional, in-depth social interaction session for the training. The question is if the control group had received some other treatment that also involved 60 minutes of in-depth social interaction but with a focus on practicing something entirely different, would the same effects have been observed? Or, even if something different had been taught that was introduced as meaning to benefit interaction (e.g. how to best set the camera angle and sound levels, adjust background etc. to allegedly make interaction most effective), would this have had a comparable effect? Without a proper control treatment, it isn’t possible to attribute the effects found to the effectiveness of gesture training per se. Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from this study that are specific to the benefit of the VSM training (over and above any other in-depth group interaction). If the authors disagree I’d be interested to hear their arguments. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r001
Revision 1
24 Jan 2022 Author Response Please find below a point by point reply to each comment made in the review process. As you will see, we have now included a second substantial pre-registered experiment, that we believe answer each of the valid concerns that were raised about our first submission. Editor Comments The manuscript needs some clarifications. More details about how the VMS gestures were selected should be provided to the readers. As we have now explained in the MS, this set of gestures were developed over time by PDH through working with groups online. The theoretical reference model adopted in the design the controlled trial and the criteria adopted for selection of the themes included in the survey (group affiliation, the learning outcomes of that seminar and the mechanics of the seminar interaction) need to be described including the appropriate references. The controlled trial design needs to be clarified identifying all trial variables: the manipulated/independent variable (e.g. VMS training or not), controlled variables, dependent variables (e.g. themes included in the survey). The procedure used for construction of scales used for measurement of the themes has to be described mentioning the relevant references. As we now state in the MS, we used a cluster randomised trial. All trial variables are stated in full in the MS and/or the supplementary material. We specify the statistical models used in our analysis in the main text, and explain in more detail in the supplementary materials. For experiment 1, we could not find a validated scale that was adequate for our use. For this reason, the survey questions were written by us, and grouped into intuitive themes. we were sure to be transparent about our data. In the MS we show the mean responses to individual items, as well as analysing by themes, and the full data set is available online. For the new experiment 2 in our resubmission, we also included two validated measures of social affiliation and interaction. Finally, the format of the manuscript has to be reviewed to improve readability and according to the format required by the journal (e. g. order of sections, references). We have restructured the MS as requested. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained Consent was given online in the initial survey completed before the first survey. This has been described in the MS. We note that Figure 1 includes an image of a participant in the study. Actually, it does not: that is one of the paper authors (P.H.) who is shown teaching the signals. We have made this clear in the figure legend. Reviewer #1: Overall, the manuscript was easy to read, clear, and to the point. It seems, based on the results from the data, the VMS system has a positive impact on participant performance. As the authors suggest, they are not able to extrapolate why the VMS system works, but they argue that implementing this type of gestural system in video meetings might be very helpful. I am inclined to agree, but I have a few questions and suggestions for the authors to add to the manuscript to clarify the importance and impact of such a gestural system. We thank R1 for their kind assessment of the MS and its strengths. Though the authors show clear differences in the two groups, it is not clear if either group used the "emoticons" and/or the VMS gestures. Is it possible for the authors to descriptively provide this data? Adding the frequency at which emoticons are used in the Zoom session and the rate at which gestures naturally (and post-training) occurred in either setting is also needed to fully understand the impact of the training. Also, did the authors also look at the text-chat during the session and is this included in the lexical analysis? We are happy to clarify this important point: during the zoom sessions emoticons were not used at all. Indeed, the emoticons that are currently available in zoom (and were employed in our new experiment 2) were not implemented in the zoom platform at the time of the experiment. And so we can be confident they were not used. The text chat was only used in a very limited way to exchange to exchange links and information. In the MS we make these important points clear to the reader. The finding is simple and preliminary, but I appreciate the authors mention of this, as to not oversell the product. Other than the request for extra detail on the use of the emoticons and gestures, I have no major concerns for the manuscript. We are delighted with the reviewer’s assessment, and hope that the addition of a new, larger experiment that replicates and extends our findings will be welcome. Reviewer #2: The reported study addresses a research question of great significance in current times, namely how online/video-communication platforms like Zoom can be improved to allow for more effective and pleasant interactions. There are several things I like about this study, but also some points that give me concern. We believe that the new experimental data we have now collected and included in this MS convincingly answer the questions that they raise. Positive points are the number of participants, which is a decent sample size for meaningful analyses of psychometric/social questionnaire measures. Also positive is the use of advanced statistics, including Bayesian techniques. The manuscript is clearly written and easy to read. We thank the review for this kind assessment of the MS’s strengths. My main point of concern is the apparent lack of a proper control condition. Unless I missed it or misunderstood, it sounds like the control group just received no treatment at all. If this is indeed the case, then any effects measured may be attributable to a pure placebo effect. Such an effect could emerge from the control group’s knowledge that they did receive some form of training that was meant to influence interactions, or even simply because they had experienced an additional, in-depth social interaction session for the training. The question is if the control group had received some other treatment that also involved 60 minutes of in-depth social interaction but with a focus on practicing something entirely different, would the same effects have been observed? * Or, even if something different had been taught that was introduced as meaning to benefit interaction (e.g. how to best set the camera angle and sound levels, adjust background etc. to allegedly make interaction most effective), would this have had a comparable effect? Without a proper control treatment, it isn’t possible to attribute the effects found to the effectiveness of gesture training per se. Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from this study that are specific to the benefit of the VSM training (over and above any other in-depth group interaction). If the authors disagree I’d be interested to hear their arguments. We agree completely with the reviewers assessment here. In our discussion we described three key differences between our experimental and control conditions, all of which - including what R2 terms the placebo effect - could be the causal reason for the differences we see. For this reason, when submitting the MS we pre-registered a set of experiments that could draw more precise conclusions about the benefits of the VSM training. We have now completed one of those studies, and report in the revised manuscript as Experiment 2. We believe this substantially increases the scope and impact of this paper, because we now have strong evidence that precisely addresses the reviewer’s only point of concern. In Experiment 2, new groups of participants had an hour long zoom session. In the VMS condition, they received a 4 minute video instructed them to use of VMS gestures. In the emoji condition, they received a training video that was identical, except that they were told to use zoom reaction buttons to display emojis on their video feeds. In the control condition, they were given no training. As in experiment 1, after the session participants evaluated their interaction and reported their feelings. There is strong evidence that participants in the symbol condition had a worse experience that those in the VMS gesture condition. We can confidently reject with evidence, therefore, the possibility that R2 raises: that we would get the same benefit with any sort of pre-interaction training. This new experimental contrast allows us to pin the benefits of VMS to the particular use of gesture. When people are trained to signal the same information at the same time with the same training - but to use symbols - there is no advantage. We are confident that R2 will agree that this new data allows for a meaningful conclusion to be drawn about VMS and substantially increases the value of this paper. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: VMS PLOSone RevReply.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r002
25 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Filomena Papa, Editor PONE-D-21-12225R1 Video Meeting Signals: Experimental evidence for a technique to improve the experience of video conferencing PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Richardson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. It is requested to revise the manuscript according to Reviewer 2's comments (see after). Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Filomena Papa Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): The manuscript improved a lot after revision due to the inclusion of Experiment 2. Carefully revise the manuscript to correct typos (for instance on page 5 substitute "Statistical analyses:" with "Statistical analyses"). [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I feel that the authors have more than satisfactorily responded to my comments, and the comments of the other reviewer. Reviewer #2: I have read the revised manuscript and think the authors have done a great job at addressing the different concerns raised. I am particularly pleased with them including Experiment 2, which indeed does address my main concern. I have two final requests though: 1) For experiment 2, rather than referring to the SMs, please include the full model specifications into the statistical analysis section, as was done for Experiment 1. The statistical model applied is a core part of the study and therefore should not be ‘hidden’ in the SMs/more effortful to consult than any of the other details. 2) One thing I am really missing regarding both experiments is an overview of how much people actually made use of the signals (i.e. gestures and emojis). This is important, because it gives insight into whether the effects are purely down to having the opportunity to draw on the respective signals, or whether actually using them plays a role (I am sure they made good use of them, but the reader should be able to validate this). I don’t expect the authors to add much here in terms of analysis, but summary statistics (e.g., means, sd, min max values) for the different conditions and a comparison between them, minimally, should be included to allow the reader to fully evaluate the findings (especially the difference between the emoji and gesture effects….which in theory could be due to a difference in how much people used the emojis versus the gestures). Editorial details: Except for in the headings/titles, the font is too small in figures 2 and 4. Typos: p. 13: Post discussion survey responses were reversed-scored where necessary and normalised within each item. --> reverse-scored p. 15 The only difference was that the signal was as emoji rather than a hand gesture. --> an emoji p. 15: There were also more positive utterances in the control groups than either of the trainman groups. --> training? ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r003
Revision 2
2 Jun 2022 Author Response Dear Editor, Here we confirmed, point by point, where we have acted upon the final comments. "The manuscript improved a lot after revision due to the inclusion of Experiment 2. Carefully revise the manuscript to correct typos (for instance on page 5 substitute "Statistical analyses:" with "Statistical analyses”)." Done   "Reviewer #1: I feel that the authors have more than satisfactorily responded to my comments, and the comments of the other reviewer. Reviewer #2: I have read the revised manuscript and think the authors have done a great job at addressing the different concerns raised. I am particularly pleased with them including Experiment 2, which indeed does address my main concern." We are delighted that both reviewers agree that our revisions satisfactorily resolved the comments in their reviews. "1) For experiment 2, rather than referring to the SMs, please include the full model specifications into the statistical analysis section, as was done for Experiment 1. The statistical model applied is a core part of the study and therefore should not be ‘hidden’ in the SMs/more effortful to consult than any of the other details. " We have moved the model specifications from the SM to the main text. "2) One thing I am really missing regarding both experiments is an overview of how much people actually made use of the signals (i.e. gestures and emojis). This is important, because it gives insight into whether the effects are purely down to having the opportunity to draw on the respective signals, or whether actually using them plays a role (I am sure they made good use of them, but the reader should be able to validate this). I don’t expect the authors to add much here in terms of analysis, but summary statistics (e.g., means, sd, min max values) for the different conditions and a comparison between them, minimally, should be included to allow the reader to fully evaluate the findings (especially the difference between the emoji and gesture effects….which in theory could be due to a difference in how much people used the emojis versus the gestures)." Unfortunately, we do not have access to this information in our data. The zoom video recording and transcripts do not code for the use of emojis (or at least, they did not in the version of the software that we employed). Therefore we cannot supply this information to the readers. Crucially, however, this information does not impact the claims that we make in the paper. Firstly, there might be concern that after the training, participants did not use either gestures or emojis at all. In both the gesture and the emoji conditions, participants are trained in their use. The Experimenter asks then to repeat back the signs and practice them, confirming that they are able to use them. And as we discuss in the MS, participants did indeed use the signals as instructed (according to the Experimenter’s anecdotal observations at the time). Most importantly, there are rich differences in participants’ experiences and behaviour between our no training, gesture and emoji conditions, as our data show. So does not appear to be the case that participants ignored or failed to engage with the signalling aspect of the experiment. Secondly, though they can and did use gestures and emojis, there might be a concern that there was a difference in the frequency of usage between conditions. If participants then choose not to use either the emojis or the gestures, or use one less than the other, then presumably that is because of something intrinsic to those signals: for example, they are less convenient to use, they aren’t as expressive, they don’t help communication. It is precisely those aspects of the use of signals that concerns us, and that we discuss in our results. To repeat: a possible difference in the frequency of usage between conditions does not change the content or evidential strength of any of our claims. "  Except for in the headings/titles, the font is too small in figures 2 and 4." We have used the font size of the headings as the minimum font size throughout. Unfortunately, this meant that we could not include the abbreviated text of each survey item in figure 4. These now refer by index to the full text in the SM. " Typos: p. 13: Post discussion survey responses were reversed-scored where necessary and normalised within each item. --> reverse-scored p. 15 The only difference was that the signal was as emoji rather than a hand gesture. --> an emoji p. 15: There were also more positive utterances in the control groups than either of the trainman groups. --> training?" All these typos have been fixed. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: resub 2 Reply.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r004
10 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Emily Chenette, Editor Video Meeting Signals: Experimental evidence for a technique to improve the experience of video conferencing PONE-D-21-12225R2 Dear Dr. Richardson, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Emily Chenette Editor in Chief PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r005
Formally Accepted
7 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - Emily Chenette, Editor PONE-D-21-12225R2 Video Meeting Signals: Experimental evidence for a technique to improve the experience of video conferencing Dear Dr. Richardson: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr Emily Chenette Staff Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270399.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .