Table 2.

Summary of Responses from Participants

Items	Questionnaire	Results
Video streaming capability for understanding the overall situation	Q1, Q2	Streaming quality was average. An unresponsive screen and unstable network restricted seamless cooperation.
Image stabilization function to stabilize wearers’ movements	Q3, Q4, Q6	The motion blur annoyed some remote supporters. The degree of bother seemed to vary by person.
Monitoring the performance of the wearer	Q3, Q4	Encountered problems due to mirror mode, limited FOV, and insufficient information.
Mirror mode	Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5	Confusing; the half-sized screen did not provide sufficient information to assess wearers’ performance. Misunderstanding of body region could result in incorrect instructions and increase the risk for medical errors.
Screen resolution	Q7	Fairly good most of the time. The received video quality was poor sometimes depending on the network quality.
Audio communication	Q8	At times, it was not clear whether the voice instructions were delivered. Desire to have communication protocols to prevent unnecessary and redundant voice transmission.