Changes for page Test

Last modified by Sofia Kostakonti on 2022/04/05 14:08

From 90.1 to 89.1 From 117.1 to 116.1

From version

116.1

edited by Sofia Kostakonti
on 2022/04/04 19:58

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

90.1

edited by Aleksanteri Hämäläinen
on 2022/04/03 18:03

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Attachments (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
- NAO_evaluation.docx

Details

Page properties

Author

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--XWiki.SKostakonti
++XWiki.ahamalainen

Content

@@ -19,19 +19,19 @@
  = Method =
--The prototype was evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants.
++The prototype is evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants.
  == Participants ==
--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.
++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.
  == Experimental design ==
--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 and were hungry. They were fully aware of them and some of the questionnaire prompts might have given them an idea of what our experiment is about (or at least that it's related to food), which might have skewed our results.
++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.
  == Tasks ==
--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 (advanced interaction) is our original implementation of it with the more sophisticated discourse and music.
++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.
  == Measures ==
@@ -41,42 +41,63 @@
  The procedure was conducted as follows:
--1. Welcome participants and explain what they are going to be doing.
++1. Welcome participant and explain what they are going to be doing.
 . Have them sign the permission form.
--1. Complete questionnaire 1 regarding their emotional state and hunger scale (control).
--1. Have interaction with version A of the robot.
++1. Complete questionnaire 1 regarding their emotional state (control).
++1. Have an interaction with version A of the robot.
 . Complete questionnaire 2 (extended version).
 . Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
--1. Have interaction with version B of the robot.
++1. Have an interaction with version B of the robot.
 . Complete questionnaire 3 (extended version).
 . Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
--We used the "Wizard of Oz" method for differentiating agreement and disagreement, to make sure that the whole process did not depend on voice recognition being good enough, and to have an overall smoother interaction. In practice, this meant that someone was pressing "y" and "n" on the keyboard according to the participants' answers, in a place the participant did not see, such as behind them. The robot's responses were hardcoded, with a few different branches available to take into account the variety of answers the participants would give. The only issue encountered was some connectivity delays at times, which only slightly affected a few of the interactions.
++Questionnares 2 and 3 were identical, for copmarison between versions A and B of the robot.
  == Material ==
--For the experiments, we used the NAO robot platform, and a laptop to control it. The participants completed the questionnaires on their phones by scanning a QR code. The questionnaires are a combination of questions regarding the emotional state of the participants, their hunger levels, their interaction with the robot, and the music included in the interaction. Stroopwafels and water in a clean cup were made available to see and measure how much people ate.
++For the experiments, we used the NAO robot platform, and a laptop to control it with. The participants completed the questionnaires on their phones by scanning a QR code. The questionnaires are a combination of questions regarding the emotional state of the participants, their interaction with the robot, and the music included in the interaction. Stroopwafels and water in a clean cup were made available to see and measure how much people ate.
--During the experiments, four different types of questions were given to the participants, in addition to the Consent Form and Disclaimers they had to sign in the beginning. The four sections were:
++Questionnaires:
++Consent Form and Disclaimers
++8 questions from the [[EVEA>>https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/39-2013-04-19-EVEA%20-%20Datasheet.pdf]] questionnaire
++4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
++3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
++2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
--1. 8 questions from the [[EVEA>>https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/39-2013-04-19-EVEA%20-%20Datasheet.pdf]] questionnaire for mood assessment
--1. 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire to assess the pleasantness and intelligence of the robot
--1. 3 hunger and food-related questions of our own, to assess if they eat before or during the interaction (5-point Likert scale)
--1. 2 music-related questions of our own, to measure how much they enjoyed the music and what was its effect (5-point Likert scale)
++== Practicalities ==
--Before the first interaction, the participants were asked to respond to sections 1. and 3., while right after each interaction, they were asked to respond to all four sections, with the music section only present after the advanced interaction.
++Beforehand:
--== Practicalities ==
++* Do a practice round by ourselves
++** Film this
++* Contact other groups and decide on a time slot
++** Might be better to reserve in 10 min slots, so that people don't have to wait so much
++** If possible, this could be done in parallel with another groups testing
++* Reserve lab
++* Buy snacks
--Before the experiment we:
++During:
--* did a practice round by ourselves
--** This was filmed to have a controlled performance to give an example of the experiment if needed
--* contacted other groups and decide on scheduling
--** Each participant was booked a 20 min slot
--* reserved the lab
--* bought the stroopwafels
++1. Give starting questionnare to fill while people are waiting for the previous participant
++2. Guide the participant to the testing spot
++3. Inform the participant where the snacks are
++4. Run the first version
++5. Give the mid-questionnare
++6. Run the other test
++7. Conduct the questionnare for the participant
++8. Give the participant the end-questionnare
++Other practicalities during:
++
++* We will use the "Wizard of Oz" method for recognizing agreement and disagreement, to make sure that the whole process does not depend on voice recegnition being good enough
++** Someone will press eg. "y" and "n" on the keyboard according to the participants answers
++* We will change the order in which the smart and basic versions are for each participant
++** this way if someone doesn't show up, we don't get skewed amounts
++
++After:
++
++* Analyze results
++
  = Results =
  The results were gathered from 19 personnel, all of whom interacted first with one version of the robot and then the other. 10 of the participants interacted first with the simple version, nine having their first interaction with the advanced version.
@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@
  (% style="text-align:center" %)
  Figure 2: Answers of the test personas regarding music
++
  == EVEA (Mood) ==
  {{html}}
@@ -205,62 +205,26 @@
  |Statistic|36|70
  |P-value|0.01|0.17
--== Qualitative Results: Quotes and observations ==
++= Discussion =
++Analysis the results surfaced some minor issues in the experiment, such as the lack of comparison with two robots of similar features, with and without music. Also the practical limitations in the setup, such as the lack of different food options and some participants being aware of the design goals of the prototype could have interfered with the natural flow of the intercourse. With these limitations, the research method was successful in extracting differences within the robots and brought up additional directions for future research.
--As described, during the experiment, the interaction between the participants and the robot was observed. This section will elaborate on findings from those observations and quotes from participants.
++The most interesting direction for future research would be the longer term studying of the effect of mealtime reminders on the health of the test subjects. The longer term health study would uncover the effect on eating frequency and the development of the relationship with the robot, for example would the test subjects that were first excited about the novel interaction with the robot, develop negative feelings about the supervision that the robot is conducting into their personal life.
--After each interaction section, the participant was asked how the interaction with the robot felt. From the interaction with the less intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
++Another topic to study is the differences with and without music. The effects of music could be studied with the music tailored to personal taste and all versions of the robot with and without the music playback included in the interaction. This would allow to pinpoint the effects of music, without the other features causing variance.
--* “The robot was bit direct.”
--* “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.”
--* “Strange, I did not catch the questions.”
--* “It felt short.”
++= Conclusions =
--Some of these quotes stress the fact that the less intelligent prototype interaction was rather short and direct. It should be said that the sequence of the interactions seemed to have some impact on how the participants experienced the interaction. Some participants who first experienced the less intelligent prototype were smiling and positively surprised during this interaction, while others who first experienced the intelligent prototype were overall smiling less while interacting with the less intelligent robot.
++From the results we can see that the more advanced robot shows advantages over the simple version in many categories. Hints of better performance in other categories can be seen, but no conclusions should be drawn from the ones that lack the statistical significance.
--From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
++In improving the eating, it seems that both robots have limited success in causing the people to eat as seen in Figure 1, they could cause the patients to eat more regularly, if triggered by timers or other suitable systems. It also seems that the advanced robot is better in the reminding, by a slight margin. However, the long term effects of reminding should be researched more to conclude whether the usage of the demonstrated robot platform or similar would cause the patients to eat more regularly. It is also unclear how the test setup and the limited choice of food affected the eating.
--* “I think it’s perfect, the robot is very friendly. I liked that the robot sat down with me after a while.”
--* “The interaction felt quite natural.”
--* “Nao answered pretty quickly, you don’t have to wait for an answer. It is quite a happy robot.”
--* “Suggestion to eat was still a bit on the side, a little subtle if I would have dementia.”
--* “Very nice, calming, I could have stayed longer with the music.”
--* “It was good, natural, understands what I’m saying.”
++Based on the answers of the participants regarding music seen in Figure 2, it seems that most of them were either indifferent or liked the music. Also, as the test personnel find the advanced robot more likeable with a 5% confidence limit (Table 7), and the advanced version was the only version with music, it seems likely that the music does make the interaction more pleasant for the personas. However, some of the likeability might be due to the other advanced features of the robot and thus more research is needed to conclude the effect of the music.
--Some participants clearly expressed how friendly they found the intelligent version of the robot. The sequence of the interactions did not seem to impact their feeling about the interaction as much as with the interaction with the less intelligent version of the robot.
--Some reported that the interaction felt natural and intuitive.
--As for the music, some participants told us that the music was a useful and pleasant addition to the interaction with the robot.
--As for the suggestion to eat and drink, one participant reported that the suggestions to eat and drink were perhaps too friendly and too subtle.
--From our observations, it seemed as if participants were either smiling more during the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot or concentrating on the interaction more carefully compared to the interaction with the less intelligent version of the robot.
--
--= Discussion =
--
--From the results we can see that the more advanced robot shows advantages over the simple version in multiple categories. Hints of better performance in other categories can be seen, but no conclusions should be drawn from the ones that lack the statistical significance.
--
--As for the eating, it seems that both robots have limited success in causing the people to eat as seen in Figure 1, they could cause the patients to eat more regularly, if triggered by timers or other suitable systems. It also seems that the advanced robot is better in the reminding, by a slight margin. However, the long term effects of reminding should be researched more to conclude whether the usage of the demonstrated robot platform or similar would cause the patients to eat more regularly. It is also unclear how the test setup and the limited choice of food affected the eating.
--
--Based on the answers of the participants regarding music seen in Figure 2, it can be seen that most of them were either indifferent or liked the music. Also, as the test personnel find the advanced robot more likeable with a 5% confidence limit (Table 7), and the advanced version was the only version with music, it seems likely that the music does make the interaction more pleasant for the personas. However, some of the likeability might be due to the other advanced features of the robot and thus more research is needed to conclude the effect of the music.
--
  The EVEA and partial Godspeed result can be seen in Figures 3-7 and Tables 1-8. The results show that with reasonable confidence (5% confidence limit), both versions of the robot decreased sadness and anxiety in the test personas. Hints are shown (10% confidence limit) that the advanced robot also decreases feelings of anger and increases happiness, while the simple robot fails to show similar results. However, in Table 7 we can see that the statistical differences in the mood differences during the interactions with the different versions are not highly significant.
--A Wilcoxon signed rank test for the partial Godspeed test shows in Table 8 that with high confidence (1% confidence limit), the intelligent robot is more likeable in comparison to the simple robot. With these results it is likely that the more advanced robot is slightly preferable and the personas might experience less negative emotions after the interaction with the robots, but it remains yet unclear if the effect is more powerful with the advanced robot.
++A Wilcoxon signed rank test for the partial Godspeed test shows in Table 8 that with high confidence (1% confidence limit), the intelligent robot is more likeable in comparison to the simple robot. With these results it is likely that the more advanced robot is slightly preferrable and the personas might experience less negative emotions after the interaction with the robots, but it is slightly unclear if the effect is more powerful with the advanced robot.
--The observations and interviews with the participants clearly demonstrated that for now, that a more friendly and intelligent robot does make the interaction with the robot more pleasant. Also, the observations do support the data from the questionnaire in terms of the likability difference between both robot types.
--Analysis of the results surfaced some minor issues in the experiment, such as the lack of comparison with two robots of similar features, with and without music. Also the practical limitations in the setup, such as the lack of different food options and some participants being aware of the design goals of the prototype could have interfered with the natural flow of the intercourse. With these limitations, the research method was successful in extracting differences within the robots and brought up additional directions for future research.
--
--The most interesting direction for future research would be the longer term studying of the effect of mealtime reminders on the health of the test subjects. The longer term health study would uncover the effect on eating frequency and the development of the relationship with the robot, for example would the test subjects that were first excited about the novel interaction with the robot, develop negative feelings about the supervision that the robot is conducting into their personal life.
--
--Furthermore, an aspect that was not compared in this study is how many stroopwafels the participants ate while interacting with the robot. For now, the focus was to evaluate whether the claim the robot causes the PwD - in the case of the experiment: the participants - to eat or not. For future research, the amount of food consumed by the participants could also be taken into consideration.
--
--Lastly, another topic to study is the differences with and without music. The effects of music could be studied with the music tailored to personal taste and all versions of the robot with and without the music playback included in the interaction. This would allow to pinpoint the effects of music, without the other features causing variance.
--
--= Conclusions =
--
--From the results it seems that in short-term interactions, both of the robots do remind the persons of their hunger, but the test setup might have caused many people not to eat or not to be hungry when arriving. It would also seem that the music does make the entire discourse more enjoyable as people did enjoy it, but it is unclear whether the observed increases in mood caused by the advanced robot in comparison to the simple version are due to the music or other features included in the advanced version or simply due to variance. It seems that the advanced robot is slightly more enjoyable due to the observed change in anxiety, but in total the results are inconclusive.
--
--The long-term effects of this are unclear and require further study. The short-term experiment shows promising results to further develop such solutions, but to also conduct experiments to study the long-term effects of such a solution. With a longer experiment, the development of the human-robot interaction and the effect of constant mealtime reminders would likely begin to show, which could cause differences to the presented short-term results, by for example the robot becoming more enjoyable as it becomes familiar.
--
  = Appendix =
  == Experiment introduction for participants ==

NAO_evaluation.docx

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-XWiki.SKostakonti

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-21.3 KB

Content