Changes for page Test

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

From 92.1 to 93.1 From 110.1 to 111.1

From version

93.1

edited by Aleksanteri Hämäläinen
on 2022/04/03 18:46

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

110.1

edited by Sofia Kostakonti
on 2022/04/04 19:30

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.SKostakonti

Content

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
  == 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 ==
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
 . Complete questionnaire 3 (extended version).
 . Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
--
  We used the "Wizard of Oz" method for recognizing agreement and disagreement, to make sure that the whole process did not depend on voice recognition being good enough. 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.
  == Material ==
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@
  Below are listed the contents of the three questionnares:
  Questionnare 1:
++
  * Consent Form and Disclaimers
  * Control for robot version A
  ** 8 questions from the [[EVEA>>https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/39-2013-04-19-EVEA%20-%20Datasheet.pdf]] questionnaire
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
  ** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
  Questionnare 2:
++
  * Questions about robot version A
  ** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
  ** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
  ** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
  Questionnare 3:
++
  * Questions about robot version B
  ** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
  ** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
@@ -122,7 +122,6 @@
  (% style="text-align:center" %)
  Figure 2: Answers of the test personas regarding music
--
  == EVEA (Mood) ==
  {{html}}
@@ -219,26 +219,62 @@
  |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.
++== Qualitative Results: Quotes and observations ==
--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.
++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.
--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.
++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:
--= Conclusions =
++* “The robot was bit direct.”
++* “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.”
++* “Strange, I did not catch the questions.”
++* “It felt short.”
--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.
++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.
--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.
++From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
--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.
++* “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.”
++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 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 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, 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 ==