Changes for page Test

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

From 121.1 to 120.1 From 124.1 to 123.5

From version

123.5

edited by Sofia Kostakonti
on 2022/04/05 13:40

Change comment: image change

To version

121.1

edited by Sofia Kostakonti
on 2022/04/04 20:41

Change comment: Deleted attachment "NAO_evaluation.pdf"

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
  = Problem statement and research questions =
--People with dementia often forget to eat and drink, leading to dehydration, malnutrition, and decreased well-being in general. Our prototype engages in discourses to remind PwD to have lunch and drink water, using the Nao robot platform. The discourse aims to remind the PwD without causing any anxiety or embarrassment that a traditional "alarm" system could cause, and keep them company throughout these activities.
++People with dementia often forget to eat and drink, leading to dehydration, malnutrition and decreased wellbeing in general. Our prototype engages in discourses to remind PwD to have lunch and drink water, using the Nao robot platform. The discourse aims to reming the PwD without causing any anxiety or embarrassment which a traditional "alarm" system could cause, and keep them company throughout these activities.
  The four research questions studied in this evaluation are:
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
  == Measures ==
--We measured the effectiveness of the discourse, both physically and emotionally. Our quantitative measure was whether the person ate the lunch they were supposed to have eaten, and the qualitative measure was the emotions that the PwD experienced before, during, and after the interaction. The qualitative measures were recorded with a simple questionnaire. Some people were not hungry enough to be prompted to have something to eat, which disturbed the results. However, we did measure whether the robot reminded someone of their hunger and if they ate.
++We measured the effectiveness of the discourse, both physically and emotionally. Our quantitative measure was whether the person ate the lunch they were supposed to have eaten, and the qualitative measure was the emotions that the PwD experienced before, during, and after the interaction. The qualitative measures were recorded with a simple questionnaire. Some people were not hungry enough to be prompted to have something to eat, which disturbed the results. However we did measure whether the robot reminded someone of their hunger and if they ate.
  == Procedure ==
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
 . 3 hunger and food-related questions of our own, to assess if they eat before or during the interaction (5-point Likert scale)
 . 2 music-related questions of our own, to measure how much they enjoyed the music and what was its effect (5-point Likert scale)
--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. The full questionnaire given to the participants can be found attached.
++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. The full questionnaire given to the participants can be found [[here >> unc:NAO_evaluation.docx ]].
  == Practicalities ==
@@ -73,11 +73,13 @@
  = Results =
--The results were gathered from 19 personnel, all of whom interacted first with one version of the robot and then the other. Ten of the participants interacted first with the simple version, while the other nine had their first interaction with the advanced version.
++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.
  == Eating ==
--[[image:EatingComp.png]]
++{{html}}
++<img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/EatingComp.png?rev=1.1" alt="Results on the eating of the test personas" style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
++{{/html}}
  (% style="text-align:center" %)
  Figure 1: Results on the eating of the test personas during the experiment
@@ -201,16 +201,16 @@
  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.
--After each interaction section, the participant was asked how the interaction with the robot felt. From the interaction with the simple version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
++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:
--* “The robot was a bit direct.”
++* “The robot was bit direct.”
  * “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.”
  * “Strange, I did not catch the questions.”
  * “It felt short.”
--Some of these quotes stress the fact that the simple 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 simple prototype were smiling and positively surprised during this interaction, while others who first experienced the advanced prototype were overall smiling less while interacting with the less intelligent robot.
++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 interaction with the advanced version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
++From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
  * “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.”
@@ -217,31 +217,31 @@
  * “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, the robot understands what I’m saying.”
++* “It was good, natural, understands what I’m saying.”
--Some participants clearly expressed how friendly they found the advanced 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 simple version of the robot.
++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 advanced version of the robot or concentrating on the interaction more carefully compared to the interaction with the simple version.
++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 statistical significance.
++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.
++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 likable 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.
++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 likable 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 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.
--The observations and interviews with the participants clearly demonstrated that for now: 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.
++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.
++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.
++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.
@@ -249,9 +249,9 @@
  = 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.
++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 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, for example, the robot becoming more enjoyable as it becomes familiar.
++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 =
@@ -259,16 +259,16 @@
--Hi, we are <NAME> and <NAME> from the TU Delft Socio-Cognitive Engineering course Group 1, thank you for participating in our prototype evaluation experiment. The experiment is being conducted as a part of the TU Delft course on Socio-Cognitive Engineering and aims to evaluate the prototype designed as a part of the course. The evaluated prototype is based on the Nao robot and is intended to improve the well-being of people suffering from dementia.
++Hi, we are <NAME> and <NAME> from the TU Delft Socio-Cognitive Engeering course Group 1, thank you for participating in our prototype evaluation experiment. The experiment is being conducted as a part of the TU Delft course on Socio-Cognitive Engineering and aims to evaluate the prototype designed as a part of the course. The evaluated prototype is based on the Nao robot-platform and is intended to improve the wellbeing of people suffering of dementia.
  Consuming food and/or water can be a consequence of the interaction between you and the robot. Therefore, we would like to ask you if you have any allergies. If you have a form of Diabetes, please let us know before we start the first part of the experiment. You are strongly encouraged to share any other health conditions that can possibly be relevant to take into account when doing an experiment with robots and food with us.
  The link between the stimuli of the Nao-robot and the triggering of epileptic seizures is yet unknown. If you have ever experienced epileptic seizures, please let us know. Then, we could see if any special precautions are needed.
--The experiment will last for approximately 15-20 minutes, and consists of two interaction sections with the Nao robot, as well as questionnaires before, between, and after the sections. We kindly ask you to act naturally during the experiment and fill the questionnaires truthfully and intuitively. Remember that we are evaluating the prototype's performance, not yours. You can stop the experiment at any time.
++The experiment will last for approximately 15-20 minutes, and consists of two interaction sections with the Nao robot, as well as questionnaires before, between and after the sections. We kindly ask you to act naturally during the experiment and fill the questionnaires truthfully and intuitively. Remember that we are evaluating the prototypes performance, not yours. You can stop the experiment at any time.
--We will be collecting data from the questionnaires and recording some experiments, do you agree with your experiment being recorded? All data excluding the recordings will be anonymized before analysis and storage. The recordings will not be shared with third parties. After the experiment, you have the right to ask for information about the collected data and revoke the right to use it. We kindly ask you not to share any information about the experiment with other participants.
--Do you have any questions?
++We will be collecting data of the questionnaires and recording some experiments, do you agree with your experiment being recorded? All data excluding the recordings will be anonymised before analysis and storage. The recordings will not be shared with third parties. After the experiment you have the right to ask for information about the collected data and revoke the right to use it. We kindly ask you not to share any information about the experiment with other participants.
++ Do you have any questions?
  == After research interview ==
@@ -276,12 +276,16 @@
  The test subject has finished both parts of the experiment. Before leaving the test conductor(s) sit down with them and ask the following questions in a discussion about the experiment. Discussion can flow freely, but the following topics should be discussed.
  Topics:
--- Emotions before/during/after the interaction with the robot
++- Emotions before / during / after the interaction with the robot
      - Agitation due to the robot suggesting eating
      - Effect of music on the general feeling of the situation
++    - Feeling of company during eating
  - Effectiveness of eating/drinking suggestions
  Questions:
++- Did you eat or drink anything during the experiment?
++- Were you feeling hungry/thirsty beforehand and did the discourse change this?
++- On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you have eaten/drank without the robot suggesting it?
  - What did the interaction with the robot feel like?
      - With the more intelligent version?
      - With the less intelligent version?