Changes for page Claims
Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 13:59
From version
30.1


edited by Rohan Sobha
on 2022/03/30 16:23
on 2022/03/30 16:23
Change comment:
Added part on freedom of choice
To version
33.1


edited by Harmen Kroon
on 2022/04/04 14:35
on 2022/04/04 14:35
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. rsobha1 +XWiki.Harmen - Content
-
... ... @@ -26,13 +26,22 @@ 26 26 27 27 Autonomy is important for People with Dementia as that will make them more motivated [[(Deci & Ryan, 1985)>>http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7_5]] to walk with the MiRo. Being connected with oneself and others [[(Han et al., 2015, p. 118)>>https://doi.org/10.1177/1533317515598857]] is crucial for PwD. The lack of autonomy is an insurmountable barrier to overcome for PwD. This is emphasized, because this factor outweighs any initial hurdles that may be introduced with the arrival of new technology such as the MiRo robot. 28 28 29 -Autonomy not only implies being capable to perform certain actions, but also the freedom to decide to engage in a certain activity. As mentioned by [[(Tyrrell et al., 2006)>>https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301206069915]], patients who reside in a care home experience less freedom of choice and more that any choice regarding their own care is imposed on them by others. In the same study, it was reported that more than a third of patients interviewed (n = 21) were not informed **at all** about their options. So, careful consideration must be applied to present these to a PwD. 29 +Autonomy not only implies being capable to perform certain actions, but also the freedom to decide to engage in a certain activity. As mentioned by [[(Tyrrell et al., 2006)>>https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301206069915]], patients who reside in a care home experience less freedom of choice and more that any choice regarding their own care is imposed on them by others. In the same study, it was reported that more than a third of patients interviewed (n = 21) were not informed **at all** about their options. So, careful consideration must be applied to present these to a PwD to ensure that they are involved and understand. 30 30 31 31 == Claim == 32 32 33 -Given positive and negative effects of walking with the Miro, it is clear that people with opposing views on dogs can still reap the benefits that come with walking with the MiRo. It should be noted though that there are issues, which are mentioned under [[Foundation.Operational Demands.Environments.WebHome||anchor="Technologies"]], which need to be addressed to mitigate any unnerving effects that the MiRo has on PwD and their surrounding stakeholders.33 +Given positive and negative effects of walking with WAF, it is clear that people with opposing views on dogs can still reap the benefits that come with walking with the MiRo. It should be noted though that there are issues, which are mentioned under [[Foundation.Operational Demands.Environments.WebHome||anchor="Technologies"]], which need to be addressed to mitigate any unnerving effects that the MiRo has on PwD and their surrounding stakeholders. 34 34 35 -Therefore, we claim that PwD experience an increase in perceived autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker. In order to support the claim, we will experimentally verify whether the MiRo can provide effective guidance on a pre-determined route and that the regained autonomy outweighs delayed assistance from human caretakers in case PwD find themselves in trouble during their walk. 35 +Therefore, we claim that (1) a PwD experiences an increase in perceived autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker. In order to support the claim, we will experimentally verify whether the MiRo can provide effective guidance on a pre-determined route and that the regained autonomy outweighs delayed assistance from human caretakers in case PwD find themselves in trouble during their walk. 36 +Furthermore, we claim the following: 37 +2. A PwD feels increased freedom to take breaks and to interact in a social context during a walk with WAF in comparison with a caretaker 38 +Especially in the context of PwDs that have an increased feeling of being a burden for their caretakers a walk with WAF lowers the bar to engage in activities on a persons on volition. The dementia and age induced hindrances are partially alleviated with the guidance of either a caretaker or WAF. The induced dependence is intrinsically felt less for a robot than another human. 39 +Our third and fourth claims are based on the particularities of MiRo being a doglike robot which specify a set of expectations somewhere in between dog behaviour and complex robot behaviour. 40 +3. WAF can grab the attention of a PwD when needed and with minimal annoyance 41 +Through its expressive means, WAF can notify a user of the system. Movements of the ears, head, tail, eyes and body indicate attention and direction, but more direct cues such as light, sound and even vibration all aid in guiding the PwD back on track. 42 +4. A PwD experiences minimal hindrance of WAF in terms of proximity and walking speed 43 +Where an actual dog would be able to adjust its movement to the dog owner during a walk, WAF needs to be able to tell when the MiRo should be closer to the PwD and when it can be further away. 44 +The last two claims are based on our design that strikes a balance of typical doglike behaviour and an intelligent and guiding robot companion. 36 36 37 37 Our experimental setup is mentioned under: [[Test.WebHome]] 38 38