Changes for page Test
Last modified by Sofia Kostakonti on 2022/04/05 14:08
From version
95.2


edited by Veikko Saikkonen
on 2022/04/04 12:12
on 2022/04/04 12:12
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version
92.1


edited by Aleksanteri Hämäläinen
on 2022/04/03 18:46
on 2022/04/03 18:46
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. VSaikkonen1 +XWiki.ahamalainen - Content
-
... ... @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ 19 19 20 20 = Method = 21 21 22 -The prototype was evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants.22 +The prototype is evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants. 23 23 24 24 == Participants == 25 25 ... ... @@ -219,33 +219,15 @@ 219 219 |Statistic|36|70 220 220 |P-value|0.01|0.17 221 221 222 -= =Qualitative Results: Quotesand observations==223 -As described,duringthe experiment,theinteraction between the participantsandtherobotwas observed.This section willelaborate onfindingsfromthoseobservations andquotes fromparticipants.222 += Discussion = 223 +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. 224 224 225 -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: 226 -* “The robot was bit direct.” 227 -* “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.” 228 -* “Strange, I did not catch the questions.” 229 -* “It felt short.” 225 +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. 230 230 231 - Some ofthesequotesstressthe fact that thelessintelligentprototypeinteractionwas rathershort and direct.Itshould be said thatthesequenceofthe interactions seemed tohavemeimpactonhowtheparticipantsexperiencedtheinteraction. Some participantswho firstexperienced the less intelligentprototypewere smilingandpositivelysurprisedduringthisinteraction,while others whofirstexperienced theintelligentprototypewere overall smilinglesswhile interactingwith thelessintelligentrobot.227 +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. 232 232 233 -From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were: 234 -* “I think it’s perfect, the robot is very friendly. I liked that the robot sat down with me after a while.” 235 -* “The interaction felt quite natural.” 236 -* “Nao answered pretty quickly, you don’t have to wait for an answer. It is quite a happy robot.” 237 -* “Suggestion to eat was still a bit on the side, a little subtle if I would have dementia.” 238 -* “Very nice, calming, I could have stayed longer with the music.” 239 -* “It was good, natural, understands what I’m saying.” 229 += Conclusions = 240 240 241 -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. 242 -Some reported that the interaction felt natural and intuitive. 243 -As for the music, some participants told us that the music did was a useful and pleasant addition to the interaction with the robot. 244 -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. 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 - 247 -= Discussion = 248 - 249 249 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. 250 250 251 251 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. ... ... @@ -256,26 +256,7 @@ 256 256 257 257 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. 258 258 259 -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. 260 260 261 -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. 262 - 263 -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. 264 - 265 -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. 266 - 267 -= Conclusions = 268 - 269 -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 270 - 271 -<ol> 272 -<li>Does the robot remind the PwD of their hunger?</li> 273 -<li>Does the music make the eating more enjoyable for the PwD?</li> 274 -<li>Does the PwD experience less negative emotions, such as agitation, sadness, embarrassment, after the interaction with the 'intelligent' robot?</li> 275 -<li>* Does the robot cause PwD to eat more regularly?</li> 276 -</ol> 277 - 278 - 279 279 = Appendix = 280 280 281 281 == Experiment introduction for participants ==