Wiki source code of Test

Version 101.1 by Aleksanteri Hämäläinen on 2022/04/04 13:30

Hide last authors
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 1 = Problem statement and research questions =
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 2
Veikko Saikkonen 9.1 3 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.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 4
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 73.1 5 The four research questions studied in this evaluation are:
Sofia Kostakonti 3.1 6
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 77.1 7 {{html}}
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 74.1 8
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 78.1 9 <ol>
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 79.1 10 <li>Does the robot remind the PwD of their hunger?</li>
11 <li>Does the music make the eating more enjoyable for the PwD?</li>
12 <li>Does the PwD experience less negative emotions, such as agitation, sadness, embarrassment, after the interaction with the 'intelligent' robot?</li>
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 84.1 13 <li>* Does the robot cause PwD to eat more regularly?</li>
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 78.1 14 </ol>
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 77.1 15
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 83.1 16 * This research question is difficult due to the practical limitations in designing the experimental setup and as such is left to lesser importance.
17
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 77.1 18 {{/html}}
19
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 20 = Method =
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 21
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 93.1 22 The prototype was evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 23
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 24 == Participants ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 25
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 86.1 26 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.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 27
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 28 == Experimental design ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 29
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 86.1 30 For the experiment we used a within-subject design. All of the participants interacted with both versions of the robot, with half of the participants interacting with the version 1 first and then version 2, and the other half in reverse order. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects. Snacks were made available for the participants, in case they were prompted and they ewre hungry. The participants were unaware of the possibility of eating snacks, to prevent disturbing the interaction with the robot. Otherwise the subjects would have been primed for eating, which would have biased the results and hide the effect of the robotic interaction.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 31
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 32 == Tasks ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 33
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 86.1 34 The participant interacted with the robot, which was programmed to engage in a lunch discourse. Two versions were implemented: the first version asks basic questions about mealtime, mostly acting as a reminder for the PwD to have lunch (basically an alarm clock). The second is our original implementation of it with the more sophisticated discourse and music.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 35
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 36 == Measures ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 37
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 86.1 38 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.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 39
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 40 == Procedure ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 41
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 86.1 42 The procedure was conducted as follows:
43
44 1. Welcome participant and explain what they are going to be doing.
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 88.1 45 1. Have them sign the permission form.
46 1. Complete questionnaire 1 regarding their emotional state (control).
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 89.1 47 1. Have an interaction with version A of the robot.
48 1. Complete questionnaire 2 (extended version).
49 1. Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
50 1. Have an interaction with version B of the robot.
51 1. Complete questionnaire 3 (extended version).
52 1. Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 87.1 53
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 92.1 54 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.
55
Sofia Kostakonti 2.1 56 == Material ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 57
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 90.1 58 For the experiments, we used the NAO robot platform, and a laptop to control it with. The participants completed the questionnaires on their phones by scanning a QR code. The questionnaires are a combination of questions regarding the emotional state of the participants, their interaction with the robot, and the music included in the interaction. Stroopwafels and water in a clean cup were made available to see and measure how much people ate.
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 59
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 91.1 60 Below are listed the contents of the three questionnares:
Sofia Kostakonti 20.1 61
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 91.1 62 Questionnare 1:
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 63
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 91.1 64 * Consent Form and Disclaimers
65 * Control for robot version A
66 ** 8 questions from the [[EVEA>>https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/39-2013-04-19-EVEA%20-%20Datasheet.pdf]] questionnaire
67 ** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
68
69 Questionnare 2:
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 70
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 91.1 71 * Questions about robot version A
72 ** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
73 ** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
74 * Control for robot version B
75 ** 8 questions from the [[EVEA>>https://www.ucm.es/data/cont/docs/39-2013-04-19-EVEA%20-%20Datasheet.pdf]] questionnaire
76 ** 4 questions from the [[Godspeed>>https://www.bartneck.de/2008/03/11/the-godspeed-questionnaire-series/]] questionnaire
77
78 Questionnare 3:
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 79
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 91.1 80 * Questions about robot version B
81 ** 3 food-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
82 ** 2 music-related questions of our own (5-point Likert scale)
83
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 11.1 84 == Practicalities ==
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 85
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 92.1 86 Before the experiment we:
Marlein Vogels 17.1 87
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 92.1 88 * did a practice round by ourselves
89 ** This was filmed to have a controlled performance to give an example of the experiment if needed
90 * contacted other groups and decide on scheduling
91 ** Each participant was booked a 20 min slot
92 * reserved the lab
93 * bought the stroopwafels
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 11.1 94
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 95 = Results =
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 96
Veikko Saikkonen 58.1 97 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.
98
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 99 == Eating ==
100
101 {{html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 44.1 102 <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/>
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 103 {{/html}}
104
105 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 106 Figure 1: Results on the eating of the test personas during the experiment
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 107
Veikko Saikkonen 59.1 108 Simple robot:
109
110 * 16% ate
111 * 33% of those would not have eaten without the robot
112
113 Advanced robot:
114
115 * 32% ate
116 * 67% of those would not have eaten without the robot
117
Veikko Saikkonen 66.1 118 == Music ==
119
120 {{html}}
121 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/MusicEnjoyable.png?rev=1.1" alt="Effects of music on the test personnel" style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=1250/>
122 {{/html}}
123
124 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 67.1 125 Figure 2: Answers of the test personas regarding music
Veikko Saikkonen 66.1 126
127
Veikko Saikkonen 51.1 128 == EVEA (Mood) ==
Veikko Saikkonen 29.1 129
130 {{html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 45.1 131 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/MoodChangeDumb.png?rev=1.1" alt="Measured moods and changes for the simple robot" style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
Veikko Saikkonen 29.1 132 {{/html}}
133
Veikko Saikkonen 32.2 134 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 67.1 135 Figure 3: Median measured moods for the simple version of the robot
Veikko Saikkonen 30.1 136
Veikko Saikkonen 32.2 137 {{html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 45.1 138 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/MoodChangeSmart.png?rev=1.1" alt="Measured moods and changes for the advanced version of the robot" style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
Veikko Saikkonen 32.2 139 {{/html}}
140
141 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 67.1 142 Figure 4: Median measured moods for the advanced version of the robot
Veikko Saikkonen 29.1 143
Veikko Saikkonen 33.1 144 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 145 Table 1: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the hypothesis that the mood changed during the interaction with the simple robot
Veikko Saikkonen 37.1 146
147 |=Mood|=Happiness|=Anxiety|=Sadness|=Anger
148 |Statistic|37|5|4|14
149 |P-value|0.54|0.01|0.01|0.45
150
151 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 152 Table 2: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the mood changed during the interaction with the advanced robot
Veikko Saikkonen 37.1 153
154 |=Mood|=Happiness|=Anxiety|=Sadness|=Anger
Veikko Saikkonen 49.1 155 |Statistic|32|11|2|17
156 |P-value|0.18|0.01|0.01|0.45
Veikko Saikkonen 37.1 157
158 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 159 Table 3: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the mood decreased during the interaction with the simple robot
Veikko Saikkonen 33.1 160
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 101.1 161 |=Mood|=Anxiety|=Sadness|=Anger|=\\
162 |Statistic|81|53|29|\\
163 |P-value|0.01|0.00|0.23|
Veikko Saikkonen 33.1 164
Veikko Saikkonen 34.1 165 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 166 Table 4: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the mood decreased during the interaction with the advanced robot
Veikko Saikkonen 33.1 167
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 168 |=Mood|=Anxiety|=Sadness|=Anger
Veikko Saikkonen 36.1 169 |Statistic|32|149|52
Veikko Saikkonen 38.1 170 |P-value|0.00|0.01|0.07
Veikko Saikkonen 34.1 171
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 172 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 173 Table 5: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the mood increased during the interaction with the simple robot
Veikko Saikkonen 34.1 174
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 175 |=Mood|=Happiness
176 |Statistic|37
Veikko Saikkonen 38.1 177 |P-value|0.27
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 178
179 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 180 Table 6: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the mood increased during the interaction with the advanced robot
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 181
182 |=Mood|=Happiness
183 |Statistic|32
Veikko Saikkonen 38.1 184 |P-value|0.09
Veikko Saikkonen 35.1 185
Veikko Saikkonen 69.2 186 (% style="text-align:center" %)
187 Table 7: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the hypothesis that the mood changes with the simple and advanced robots during the interaction are different
188
189 |=Mood|=Happiness|=Anxiety|=Sadness|=Anger
190 |Statistic|92|49|85|69
191 |P-value|0.92|0.07|0.71|0.31
192
Veikko Saikkonen 52.1 193 == Godspeed ==
194
Veikko Saikkonen 40.1 195 {{html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 46.1 196 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/friendly-hist.png?rev=1.1" alt="Effects of music on the test personnel" style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 197 {{/html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 40.1 198
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 199 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 200 Figure 5: Answers to the statement 'I thought the robot was friendly'
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 201
Veikko Saikkonen 40.1 202 {{html}}
Veikko Saikkonen 46.1 203 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/pleasant-hist.png?rev=1.1" alt="Answers to the statement 'I thought the robot was pleasant'." style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
Veikko Saikkonen 40.1 204 {{/html}}
205
206 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 207 Figure 6: Answers to the statement 'I thought the robot was pleasant'
Veikko Saikkonen 40.1 208
Veikko Saikkonen 54.1 209 {{html}}
210 <img src="https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group01/download/Test/WebHome/godspeed-barchart.png?rev=1.1" alt="Godspeed questionnaire median comparison'." style="display:block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" width=750/>
211 {{/html}}
Bart Vastenhouw 1.1 212
Veikko Saikkonen 54.1 213 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 62.1 214 Figure 7: Median measured Godspeed questionnaire dimensions
Veikko Saikkonen 41.1 215
Veikko Saikkonen 64.1 216
217 (% style="text-align:center" %)
Veikko Saikkonen 71.1 218 Table 8: Wilcoxon signed rank test results for the null hypothesis that the advanced robot scored higher in the perceived dimensions
Veikko Saikkonen 64.1 219
Veikko Saikkonen 56.1 220 |=Dimension|=Likeability|=Intelligence
Veikko Saikkonen 55.1 221 |Statistic|36|70
222 |P-value|0.01|0.17
Veikko Saikkonen 52.1 223
Marlein Vogels 94.1 224 == Qualitative Results: Quotes and observations ==
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 225
Marlein Vogels 94.1 226 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.
227
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 99.1 228 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:
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 229
Marlein Vogels 94.1 230 * “The robot was bit direct.”
231 * “Efficient interaction, but less friendly than the other interaction.”
232 * “Strange, I did not catch the questions.”
233 * “It felt short.”
Marlein Vogels 95.1 234
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 99.1 235 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.
Marlein Vogels 94.1 236
237 From the interaction with the intelligent version of the robot, some interesting quotes were:
Veikko Saikkonen 97.1 238
Marlein Vogels 94.1 239 * “I think it’s perfect, the robot is very friendly. I liked that the robot sat down with me after a while.”
240 * “The interaction felt quite natural.”
241 * “Nao answered pretty quickly, you don’t have to wait for an answer. It is quite a happy robot.”
242 * “Suggestion to eat was still a bit on the side, a little subtle if I would have dementia.”
243 * “Very nice, calming, I could have stayed longer with the music.”
244 * “It was good, natural, understands what I’m saying.”
Marlein Vogels 95.1 245
Marlein Vogels 94.1 246 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.
247 Some reported that the interaction felt natural and intuitive.
Aleksanteri Hämäläinen 99.1 248 As for the music, some participants told us that the music was a useful and pleasant addition to the interaction with the robot.
Marlein Vogels 94.1 249 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.
250 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.
251
Veikko Saikkonen 72.1 252 = Discussion =
Veikko Saikkonen 95.2 253
254 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.
255
256 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.
257
258 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.
259
260 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.
261
262 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.
263
Veikko Saikkonen 72.1 264 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.
265
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
Marlein Vogels 94.1 270 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
Veikko Saikkonen 57.1 272 = Conclusions =
Veikko Saikkonen 54.1 273
Veikko Saikkonen 96.1 274 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.
Veikko Saikkonen 54.1 275
Veikko Saikkonen 96.1 276 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
Veikko Saikkonen 10.1 278 = Appendix =
279
Marlein Vogels 17.1 280 == Experiment introduction for participants ==
Veikko Saikkonen 16.1 281
Marlein Vogels 17.1 282
Veikko Saikkonen 16.1 283
Marlein Vogels 17.1 284 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.
Veikko Saikkonen 16.1 285
Marlein Vogels 19.1 286 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.
287
288 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.
289
Marlein Vogels 18.1 290 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.
Marlein Vogels 17.1 291
292 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.
Veikko Saikkonen 16.1 293 
Do you have any questions?
294
Veikko Saikkonen 10.1 295 == After research interview ==
296
297 Setup:
298 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.
299
300 Topics:
301 - Emotions before / during / after the interaction with the robot
302 - Agitation due to the robot suggesting eating
303 - Effect of music on the general feeling of the situation
304 - Feeling of company during eating
305 - Effectiveness of eating/drinking suggestions
306
Veikko Saikkonen 12.1 307 Questions:
308 - Did you eat or drink anything during the experiment?
309 - Were you feeling hungry/thirsty beforehand and did the discourse change this?
310 - On a scale of 1-10, how likely would you have eaten/drank without the robot suggesting it?
Veikko Saikkonen 10.1 311 - What did the interaction with the robot feel like?
312 - With the more intelligent version?
313 - With the less intelligent version?
314 - What did you feel like when the robot suggested you should eat/drink?