Wiki source code of Rohan Sobha

Version 5.1 by Rohan Sobha on 2022/03/22 21:56

version	line-number	content
5.1	1	= Weekly log =
	2
2.1	3	=== Week 1 ===
	4
5.1	5	I created a profile page and wrote about the involved stakeholders and extended the environments page. Whilst writing the activities, I learned of the many types of therapy offered to patients with dementia and the ReJAM project.
2.1	6
	7	=== Week 2 ===
	8
5.1	9	I wrote a motivation on our pick for the Miro robot and explored how music and cognition theory can be applied to our own project. In this week, I was exposed to many different kinds of robots and how each robot can use its features to support a similar target group. I found the connection between music and cognition very interesting as I never knew that there was such an innate connection between the two and how it can help with recall.
3.1	10
	11	=== Week 3 ===
	12
5.1	13	I wrote about the claims that resulted from our personas and their respective storyboards. I was not able to take every storyboard and proposed function into the claims as it would turn out that some of these claims are difficult to justify by prior works or empirically by means of an experiment.
3.1	14
	15	=== Week 4 ===
	16
5.1	17	I created a draft for the evaluation and I was a presenter during the mid-progress presentations. This draft contained the main research question followed with subquestions and a couple of key words (e.g. within-subject design) as a vague aim to work towards. In addition, together with Laura, I created the slides for the mid-presentation of which I was a presenter.
3.1	18
	19	=== Week 5 ===
	20
5.1	21	I elaborated on the evaluation design and collaborated with Doreen on the experimental test setup. After receiving feedback on the complexity of the proposed experimental design, we decided to explicitly not evaluate the Snoezelen feature as it would make it more complicated and quite unfeasible to manage within the scope of the project. Simultaneously, Doreen and I were augmenting the experimental test setup by elaborating on how we were going to answer our research questions and justify the respective claims.
4.1	22
	23	=== Week 6 ===
	24
5.1	25	Together with Tim, I finalized the survey for the experimental setup and elaborated on the provided claims. The claims needed to be justified with literature and the survey that the participants of the experiment need to fill in was finalized. In addition, I enjoyed Frank Broz' lecture on inclusive design as I was not aware that inclusive design not only benefits those who explicitly need it, but also those who make use of it and implicitly reap the benefits. Moreover, as a group, we held the pilot experiment with a hard-of-hearing person to be able to observe how well the MiRo would perform when being used by a person with impaired senses.
	26
	27	=== Week 7 ===
	28
	29	This week we held the actual experiments and I added Marcus as a persona to the claims.
	30
	31	= Project reflection =
	32
	33
	34