Skip to Content

Changes for page Conclusion

Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 14:04
From version 18.1
edited by Tim Huisman
on 2022/04/04 20:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 20.1
edited by Tim Huisman
on 2022/04/05 10:55
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -15,8 +15,10 @@
15 15  
16 16  One of the limitations of the MiRo is that it is unable to walk on floors that are either uneven, carpeted or black. A new robot prototype should have some form of limbs that allow it to be able to walk up steps and traverse rough terrain, allowing the person with dementia to walk outside. Also, the robot is currently unable to walk a path that is not entirely hardcoded. The robot should be able to follow a predefined path and should be able to differ from that path if an obstacle is detected. Next to this, the robustness of a new version should be improved. This could allow for touch and/or cuddling (more on this later), but also for a physical connection such as a leash to the robot. Currently, our prototype was only able to regain the attention of the PwD by the proximity wristband and by movement. With a physical connection, this regaining of attention would be much easier. If this is not possible, however, there should an evaluation on which type of attention gaining is most effective.
17 17  
18 -The robot dog should also be able to connect with the caretaker if something happens where additional assistance is necessary. Therefore, the dog should have some way of contacting the caretaker, either over data roaming or wifi. The robot should also have a GPS so the caretaker can locate the robot, and, more importantly, the person with dementia if they are lost or if they refuse to follow the robot.
18 +Additionally, more evaluation should be done on a more representative subject group and in a more representative environment. We described our ideas for this in the conclusion of the [[Test>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Test/]] section.
19 19  
20 +The robot dog should also be able to connect with the caretaker if something happens where additional assistance is necessary. Therefore, the dog should have some way of contacting the caretaker, either over data roaming or WiFi. The robot should also have a GPS or UWB support so the caretaker can locate the robot, and, more importantly, the person with dementia if they are lost or if they refuse to follow the robot.
21 +
20 20  When the person with dementia is on a walk, the robot dog should be able to listen to a name that has been created by either the care home or the individual person with dementia. When the dog can listen to a name, it can respond to its name like a real dog. The person with dementia could then get a better bond with the robot dog if they were able to give it a name to which it would respond. Finally, if the dog listens to its name, it can stop walking and start paying attention to the user to see if it would need something from the dog.
21 21  
22 22  To further strengthen this bond between the person with dementia and their robot dog companion, the new version should allow for Snoezelen. The next section contains our ideas for this additional functionality, and how we would evaluate this function if our prototype allowed for this.
... ... @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
23 23  
24 24  == Snoezelen ==
25 25  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.
26 -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 +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/]], [[Functions>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Functions/]] and [[Claims>>https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group02/view/Claims/]].
27 27  
28 28  ** TODO - do we want to refer to our storyboards in Functions, or remove them?**
29 29