Skip to Content

Changes for page Conclusion

Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 14:04
From version 15.1
edited by Tim Huisman
on 2022/04/04 20:32
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 16.1
edited by Tim Huisman
on 2022/04/04 20:33
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -24,8 +24,11 @@
24 24  
25 25  == Snoezelen ==
26 26  We imagined WAF to not only be a guiding robot but also pose itself as a companion. For this, WAF should allow for 'Snoezelen'. Clients should be able to pet WAF on its head and body, and it should respond to that affection with happy noises and movements. This helps the client to create a bond with WAF and it makes walks with WAF more enjoyable. For this, WAF must not be too fragile so people can pet its head and body. Preferably, WAF's skin should be soft or nice to touch, so petting it would be preferable to petting a hard plastic dog like the MiRo.
27 -We did take Snoezelen as a secondary function into account for our [[Ontology>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Main/Ontology/]], [[Use Cases>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Use%20Cases/]] and [[Claims>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Claims/]]. TODO - do we want to refer to our storyboards in Functions, or remove them?
27 +We did take Snoezelen as a secondary function into account for our [[Ontology>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Main/Ontology/]], [[Use Cases>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Use%20Cases/]] and [[Claims>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Claims/]].
28 28  
29 +** TODO - do we want to refer to our storyboards in Functions, or remove them?**
30 +
31 +
29 29  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.
30 30  
31 31  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.