Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
51	51	1. Complete questionnaire 3 (extended version).
52	52	1. Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
53	53
54		-
55	55	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.
56	56
57	57	== Material ==
...	...	@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@
61	61	Below are listed the contents of the three questionnares:
62	62
63	63	Questionnare 1:
	63	+
64	64	* Consent Form and Disclaimers
65	65	* Control for robot version A
66	66	** 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 @@
67	67	** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
68	68
69	69	Questionnare 2:
	70	+
70	70	* Questions about robot version A
71	71	** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
72	72	** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
...	...	@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@
75	75	** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
76	76
77	77	Questionnare 3:
	79	+
78	78	* Questions about robot version B
79	79	** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
80	80	** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
...	...	@@ -220,9 +220,11 @@
220	220	|P-value|0.01|0.17
221	221
222	222	== Qualitative Results: Quotes and observations ==
	225	+
223	223	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.
224	224
225	225	After each interaction section, the 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:
	229	+
226	226	* “The robot was bit direct.”
227	227	* “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.”
228	228	* “Strange, I did not catch the questions.”
...	...	@@ -231,6 +231,7 @@
231	231	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 over all smiling less while interacting with the less intelligent robot.
232	232
233	233	From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
	238	+
234	234	* “I think it’s perfect, the robot is very friendly. I liked that the robot sat down with me after a while.”
235	235	* “The interaction felt quite natural.”
236	236	* “Nao answered pretty quickly, you don’t have to wait for an answer. It is quite a happy robot.”
...	...	@@ -245,16 +245,7 @@
245	245	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.
246	246
247	247	= Discussion =
248		-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.
249	249
250		-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.
251		-
252		-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.
253		-
254		-Lastly, 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.
255		-
256		-= Conclusions =
257		-
258	258	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.
259	259
260	260	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.
...	...	@@ -265,7 +265,20 @@
265	265
266	266	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.
267	267
	264	+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.
268	268
	266	+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.
	267	+
	268	+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.
	269	+
	270	+Lastly, 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.
	271	+
	272	+= Conclusions =
	273	+
	274	+From the results it seems that in short-term interactions, both of the robots does 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.
	275	+
	276	+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.
	277	+
269	269	= Appendix =
270	270
271	271	== Experiment introduction for participants ==