Changes for page Conclusion

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-XWiki.Tim_Huisman2
	1	+XWiki.rsobha

Content

...	...	@@ -10,8 +10,15 @@
10	10	Finally, the new version of the robot dog should allow for Snoezelen. The dog must not be too fragile so people can pet the head and body of the dog. Preferably, the skin of the dog should be soft or nice to the touch so petting it would be more preferable than petting a hard plastic dog like the MiRo.
11	11
12	12	== Snoezelen ==
13		-Next to this, MiRo should not only be a guiding robot, it should also pose itself as a companion. For this, MiRo should allow for 'Snoezelen'. Clients should be able to pet MiRo 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 MiRo and it makes walks with MiRo more enjoyable.
	13	+Next to this, MiRo should not only be a guiding robot, it should also pose itself as a companion. For this, MiRo should allow for 'Snoezelen'. Clients should be able to pet MiRo 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 MiRo and it makes walks with MiRo more enjoyable. 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/]].
14	14
	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	+
	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]]
	18	+
	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	+
	21	+
15	15	= Conclusion =
16	16
17	17