Changes for page Conclusion
Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 14:04
From version 11.1
edited by Rohan Sobha
on 2022/04/04 14:17
on 2022/04/04 14:17
Change comment:
Added evaluation of Snoezelen
To version 13.1
edited by Tim Huisman
on 2022/04/04 18:18
on 2022/04/04 18:18
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. rsobha1 +XWiki.Tim_Huisman2 - Content
-
... ... @@ -14,10 +14,11 @@ 14 14 15 15 However, as we were not able to test Snoezelen, our evaluation of this function is limited to a conceptual empirical setup which is described as follows. The research question (R4) would be phrased as: how do users react to Snoezelen with a moving robot? To answer this exploratory question empirically, we would embed a between-subject study design where participants would be divided into three groups: stationary, limited movement and free movement. Multiple sessions (e.g. more than three) would be preferable to mitigate the novelty effect of engaging with WAF (i.e. the MiRo) for the first time. 16 16 17 -In the first group, the MiRo would only make sounds and blink LEDs. In the second group, the MiRo would wag its tail and turn its head at times. In the last group, the MiRo would move in all directions, so roll forwards, backwards and side-to-side. Using the first group as a base condition, we could use metrics such as heart rate and the PwD's own experience to compare between each group and see if Snoezelen with a robot that expresses more degrees of moving freedom either overwhelms (e.g. too much stimuli caused by movement of MiRo) PwD or rather stimulates them (e.g. makes them more energetic). To allow the PwD to describe their own emotions perhaps more accurately, the AffectButton [[(Broekens & Brinkman, 2009)>>http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/acii.2009.5349347]] 17 +In the first group, the MiRo would only make sounds and blink LEDs. In the second group, the MiRo would wag its tail and turn its head at times. In the last group, the MiRo would move in all directions, so roll forwards, backwards and side-to-side. Using the first group as a base condition, we could use metrics such as heart rate and the PwD's own experience to compare between each group and see if Snoezelen with a robot that expresses more degrees of moving freedom either overwhelms (e.g. too much stimuli caused by movement of MiRo) PwD or rather stimulates them (e.g. makes them more energetic). To allow the PwD to describe their own emotions perhaps more accurately, the AffectButton [[(Broekens & Brinkman, 2009)>>http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/acii.2009.5349347]] could be used to provide feedback. 18 18 19 19 Ethically, we would have to accommodate PwDs who are hypersensitive to certain stimuli by making sure they only participate in the base control group (i.e. the first one) or to exclude them if they are known to suffer from epileptic seizures. Naturally, this study would take on the form of a field study rather than a lab one as the discomfort of PwD can be a major factor in the outcome of the results of such an experiment. 20 20 21 +We have noticed during the test sessions with MiRo that MiRo is too frail to touch. When the head is touched, the neck will accidentally move, which could damage the kinetic motor if the person would not be careful enough. 21 21 22 22 = Conclusion = 23 23