Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Claims

Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 13:59
Show last authors
1 If we consider the functions specified in [[Functions.WebHome]], there are two categories of functions: functions relating the walking with WAF and Snoezelen. This section contains claims we derived based on our foundation and functions for both of these categories. However, we will not evaluate Snoezelen given the limitations that came with the MiRo robot. For both function categories, we will outline the positive as well as the negative effects for each persona and their interaction on the storyboard. Finally, we will construct a claim from these effects.
2
3 == Walking with the WAF ==
4
5 === Effects on Personas ===
6
7 ==== Cornelia (PwD who likes dogs) ====
8
9 After walking with WAF, Cornelia will feel happier as she was able to rekindle some nostalgic memories she obtained when walking with the former dog she used to own. In addition, her mood will increase as she managed to do some exercise. Cornelia's introvertedness and independence make her reluctant to bother her loved ones or caretakers to go on a walk with her. As such she is relieved that WAF allows her to regain some of the former autonomy she used to enjoy.
10
11 That being said, she may grow fond of walking with WAF and exert her own body by walking more than she can handle at her age. Moreover, WAF might not be able to assist her immediately if Cornelia gets injured herself by walking into obstacles or tripping over WAF
12
13 ==== Constantijn (PwD who dislikes dogs) ====
14
15 After walking with WAF, Constantijn will feel elated that he was able to leave his room at all. Constantijn is known for his eagerness to talk to his co-residents and WAF allows him to fulfill his desire. Although he is less bothered by the lack of autonomy, it does provide him with a little boost in self-confidence as he was able to accomplish his goal. However, Constantijn's aversion to dogs will make him want to walk away from WAF. This can lead to undesired results such as additional care needed from caretakers and Constantijn may end up being punished by not being able to go out on his own due to non-compliance from his walk with WAF. When this scenario occurs, his autonomy will be severely reduced and make him utterly depressed.
16
17 ==== Marcus (PwD who's indifferent about dogs) ====
18
19 A major positive effect that WAF has on Marcus is that Marcus was able to receive medical assistance because WAF was able to call for help. Walking with WAF itself did not provide Marcus with negative effects as WAF did what it could do within its limits. A similar accident could have occurred with the presence of a less experienced caretaker who would not notice that Marcus pushed beyond his walking capabilities. Generally, Marcus is not keen on trying again, because of the experience and not necessarily because of WAF. In conclusion, PwDs like Marcus may discontinue the use of WAF for walking, because of external factors that are independent of the WAF's behaviour and appearance. To mitigate the effect of these factors, personalizing WAF to the individual PwD's desires and needs is of utmost significance.
20
21 === Importance of Autonomy ===
22
23 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 WAF. 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 WAF.
24
25 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 than 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 understood.
26
27 === Claim ===
28
29 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 WAF. 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 WAF has on PwD and their surrounding stakeholders.
30
31 Therefore, we claim the following:
32 1. A PwD experiences an increase in perceived autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker.
33 1. 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.
34 1. WAF can grab the attention of a PwD when needed and with minimal annoyance
35 1. A PwD experiences minimal hindrance of WAF in terms of proximity and walking speed
36
37 Claim 1 shows the focus of research is on the overall support of patients in and possibly outside of our activity. Furthermore, we have other claims that support this.
38 Claim 2 is based on WAF lowering the bar to engage in activities on a person's own volition. Especially in the context of PwDs that have an increased feeling of being a burden to their caretakers. Dementia and age-induced hindrances are partially alleviated with the guidance of either a caretaker or WAF. The induced dependence is intrinsically felt less by a robot than another human.
39 Our third and fourth claims are based on the particularities of MiRo being a doglike robot which specifies a set of expectations somewhere in between dog behaviour and complex robot behaviour.
40 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.
41 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 it should be closer to the PwD and when it can be further away.
42 These last two claims are based on our design that strikes a balance of typical doglike behaviour and an intelligent and guiding robot companion.
43
44 In order to support the claims, we will experimentally verify whether WAF 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. Our experimental setup is mentioned under: [[Test.WebHome]]
45
46 == Snoezelen with WAF ==
47
48 As Snoezelen is considered an additional function, none of the [[Foundation.Operational Demands.Personas.WebHome]] constructed have attributes that would make them more or less inclined to engage in Snoezelen. For the purpose of Snoezelen, we distinguish between two types of PwD. One that likes dogs and one that does not.
49
50 === PwD who likes dogs===
51
52 The sensory stimuli produced by WAF can calm down the PwD when they are distraught. Snoezelen helps with the stimulation of one's mind and encourages PwD to pet the robot to observe a spectrum of LEDs and listen to calming and relaxing sounds.
53
54 However, if the PwD has any auditory or visual impairments, then these could alter the experience and the effectiveness of Snoezelen with WAF. In addition, epilepsy, sensitive hearing or similar sensory disorders may cause the PwD to be overwhelmed. As such, WAF should be able to adapt to each different PwD. Modifications include: changing the volume of sounds, removing (relatively) high-pitched noises and removing visual patterns that may induce epileptic attacks.
55
56
57 === PwD who dislikes dogs===
58
59 Even if the PwD is disinterested initially, they may still have the innate desire to explore the association between touching WAF and its response. If the PwD decides afterwards that they do not wish to continue Snoezelen, they may still benefit from experiencing a mind stimulating novel activity. Otherwise, they may grow fond of Snoezelen in subsequent sessions.
60
61 PwD who dislikes Snoezelen may experience similar negative effects as the PwD who likes Snoezelen, but the former group will be more perceptive to these effects as it reinforces their already existing disliking of this activity.
62
63 === Claim ===
64
65 Snoezelen with WAF may benefit those who need it. Whether Snoezelen with WAF is successful depends on factors such as the inclination of PwD, PwD's first impression (after one session) and customizability. People tend to implicitly reinforce their own biases and may be thrown off by the the robot's appearance and behaviour during Snoezelen. If the aforementioned factors are taken care of, then one can safely claim that PwD will become either more relaxed at best or not bothered at worst by WAF at all. To emphasize customizability, it is important to have WAF programmed to accommodate the sensitivity of each different PwD. Failing to do so may cause long-term mental trauma or physical injury for PwD. Due to the highly personalized approach in combination with technical limitations, this claim will **not** be evaluated.
66