Changes for page Test
Last modified by Sofia Kostakonti on 2022/04/05 14:08
From version
114.1


edited by Sofia Kostakonti
on 2022/04/04 19:44
on 2022/04/04 19:44
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version
109.1


edited by Marlein Vogels
on 2022/04/04 17:20
on 2022/04/04 17:20
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. SKostakonti1 +XWiki.MarleinVogels - Content
-
... ... @@ -23,15 +23,15 @@ 23 23 24 24 == Participants == 25 25 26 -As there are practical difficulties with conducting the experiment with actual people with dementia ,due to both time constraints and COVID, our participants' group consists of peers from other groups and friends. In total we had 19 people take part in our experiment.26 +As there are practical difficulties with conducting the experiment with actual people with dementia due to both time constraints and COVID, our participants' group consists of peers from other groups and friends. In total we had 19 people take part in our experiment. 27 27 28 28 == Experimental design == 29 29 30 -For the experiment ,we used a within-subject design. All of the participants interacted with both versions of the robot, with half of the participants interacting with version 1 first and then version 2, and the other half in reverse order. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects. Snacks were made available for the participants, in case they were prompted andwere hungry. Theywerefullyaware of themand someofthequestionnaire promptsmighthavegiven themanideafwhatour experimentisabout(or atleastthatit'srelatedtofood), whichmighthave skewedourresults.30 +For the experiment we used a within-subject design. All of the participants interacted with both versions of the robot, with half of the participants interacting with the version 1 first and then version 2, and the other half in reverse order. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects. Snacks were made available for the participants, in case they were prompted and they ewre hungry. The participants were unaware of the possibility of eating snacks, to prevent disturbing the interaction with the robot. Otherwise the subjects would have been primed for eating, which would have biased the results and hide the effect of the robotic interaction. 31 31 32 32 == Tasks == 33 33 34 -The participant interacted with the robot, which was programmed to engage in a lunch discourse. Two versions were implemented: the first version (simple interaction) asks basic questions about mealtime, mostly acting as a reminder for the PwD to have lunch (basically an alarm clock). The second(advancedinteraction) is our original implementation of it with the more sophisticated discourse and music.34 +The participant interacted with the robot, which was programmed to engage in a lunch discourse. Two versions were implemented: the first version asks basic questions about mealtime, mostly acting as a reminder for the PwD to have lunch (basically an alarm clock). The second is our original implementation of it with the more sophisticated discourse and music. 35 35 36 36 == Measures == 37 37
- NAO_evaluation.docx
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -XWiki.SKostakonti - Size
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21.3 KB - Content