## 1 Introduction  
A telepresence robot presents a solution for doctors and health care workers to consult, handle, or monitor people in remote places or in contaminated areas, avoiding self-exposure. For instance, in the present coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) or in recent epidemics like Ebola virus disease (EVD), a physician could teleoperate a robot and, through it, look around, move, or communicate safely in a contained environment. The robot's capabilities of perception, manipulation, and mobility allow performing some disaster-response tasks [1; 2; 3]. Teleobotics is already present in areas like surgery (e.g., the Da Vinci Robot) [4], remote inspection, space exploration [5; 6], underwater maintenance, nuclear disposal, hazardous environment cleaning, and search and rescue. However, most of these robotic interventions in critical tasks still rely on the human's control capabilities. Teleoperated robots quite often include semi-autonomous functionalities to assist operators. To this end, cognitive human-robot interaction architectures are being used to minimize the control workload, improve the task performance, and increase safety [7; 8]. Thus, the design of such cognitive robotic systems can integrate the knowledge of human perceptual factors to predict the intended actions and needs of operators. Human's actions depend on the perception of the environment, while the decisions rely on correct the recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli [9]. For this, several sensory modalities contribute information, providing cues for the perception of space and motion. These perceptual cues are continuously acquired and matched with our mental models. While some cues are consistently matched, others do not fit. Consequently, our brain tries to solve these conflicts to avoid compromising consequent actions, e.g., we expect that a known object seems bigger when it is near us and smaller if it is further away. We also do not expect to \"see\" a radio's loudspeaker somewhere and \"listen\" to the respective sound coming from a different direction. Another example of unsolved conflict can occur while on a train looking for a parallel train, where we cannot distinguish which train is moving, whether it it is ours or the other one. Surprisingly, we deal well with other conflicting situations: when we are combing our hair in front of a mirror, the hand that really \"touches\" us is not the one that we are \"seeing\": it is the reflection of the hand; this results from a learning process because children do not know how to comb in front of a mirror. In short, real-world representations are built on sensory information and cognition to understand them, using thoughts and experience (bottom-up and top-down processes complement each other). Currently, a person can act in a remote environment through a teleoperation system; however, the use of any type of mediation requires training. This interaction with the system can be simple, if the control interface remains intuitive and natural. Ideally, if the operator feels as though he/she is in a remote location, he/she will act as naturally as though he/she were physically there. The illusion of telepresence can be induced through a proper action-perception loop supported by technology [10]. A person experiencing sensory stimuli similar to those in the remote environment and acting in line with them can actually sense \"being there\" [11]. Such a feeling depends on the capability of the system to accurately display remote environment properties and provide enough information about the remote agent and the responsiveness of the system to motor inputs, i.e., immerse the person in media [12]. [PERSON] [13] suggested a distinction between (virtual) presence and (experiential) telepresence: presence refers to the experience of being present in a virtual world and telepresence to the sense of being in a mediated remote real environment. The term telepresence was initially introduced by [PERSON] in the teleoperation context.