Changes for page Test

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

From 70.1 to 69.2 From 74.1 to 73.1

From version

73.1

edited by Aleksanteri Hämäläinen
on 2022/04/03 17:43

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

70.1

edited by Veikko Saikkonen
on 2022/04/01 15:25

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

@@ -2,15 +2,13 @@
  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:
++RQ1: "Does the robot cause PwD to eat more regularly?"*
++RQ2: "Does the robot remind the PwD of their hunger?"
++RQ3: "Does the music make the eating more enjoyable for the PwD?"
++RQ4: "Does the PwD experience less negative emotions, such as agitation, sadness, embarrassment, after the interaction with the 'intelligent' robot?"
--1*. Does the robot cause PwD to eat more regularly?
--2. "Does the robot remind the PwD of their hunger?"
--3. "Does the music make the eating more enjoyable for the PwD?"
--4. "Does the PwD experience less negative emotions, such as agitation, sadness, embarrassment, after the interaction with the 'intelligent' robot?"
++'*' This research question is difficult due to the practical limitations in designing the experimental setup and as such is left to lesser importance.
--* This research question is difficult due to the practical limitations in designing the experimental setup and as such is left to lesser importance.
--
  = Method =
  The prototype is evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants. In the experiment, the participants will be asked to pretend to be PwD and act accordingly with/without the prototype.
@@ -211,19 +211,12 @@
  (% style="text-align:center" %)
--Table 8: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the advanced robot scored higher in the perceived dimensions
++Table 7: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the advanced robot scored higher in the perceived dimensions
  |=Dimension|=Likeability|=Intelligence
  |Statistic|36|70
  |P-value|0.01|0.17
--= 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.
--
--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.
--
--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 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.
@@ -232,11 +232,18 @@
  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.
--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.
++The EVEA and partial Godspeed result can be seen in Figures 3-7 and Tables 1-7. 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. The choice to compare the changes happening during the interaction was to show the
--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.
++A Wilcoxon signed rank test for the partial Godspeed test shows in Table 7 that with high confidence (1% confidence limit), the intelligent robot is more likeable in comparison to the simple robot.
++
++
++
++= Discussion =
++
++
++
  = Appendix =
  == Experiment introduction for participants ==