Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Laura Ottevanger on 2022/04/05 14:02
From version Icon 12.1 Icon
edited by Doreen Mulder
on 2022/03/09 10:36
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 15.1 Icon
edited by Doreen Mulder
on 2022/03/09 11:00
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -4,14 +4,11 @@
4 4  With our research, we aim to provide support to Patients with Dementia (PwD) who currently are dependent on their caretakers and significant other to go for walks. This is outlined in more detail in the Objectives section. The presumed baseline is that PwD walk under supervision of their loved ones or caretakers. To reach our objective and support our claims, we would like to put forward the following research question:
5 5  
6 6  //Does walking with the MiRo increase the perceived autonomy of people with dementia, compared to walking under guidance of a caretaker?//
7 -
8 -
9 -(deze weghalen of bij future work zetten?)
10 -Does walking with the MiRo increase the perceived satisfaction?
11 -To which degree do users express familiarity with the MiRo?
12 -How do users react to snoezelen with a moving robot?
13 13  
8 +To answer this question, we use the following subquestions:
14 14  
10 +* Is the MiRo effective in providing guidance to a person with dementia on a predetermined route?
11 +* Does the increase in perceived autonomy outweigh the possible delayed help when a person with dementia gets in trouble on their walk?
15 15  
16 16  = Method =
17 17  
... ... @@ -25,12 +25,10 @@
25 25  
26 26  == Experimental design ==
27 27  
28 -The first two questions can be answered using a within-subject design in order to be able to measure the //increase// per subject. The learning effect will be mitigated, because the two juxtaposed settings are vastly different. So, there is no advantage for the participant to be subjected to two conditions serially.
25 +The main research question can be answered using a within-subject design in order to be able to measure the //increase// per subject. The learning effect will be mitigated, because the two juxtaposed settings are vastly different. So, there is no advantage for the participant to be subjected to two conditions serially.
29 29  
30 -The third question is posed as a exploratory question. There will be no alternative condition. The expression of familiarity will be recorded in the form of audio recording which are to be transcribed afterwards. Naturally, the recordings will be deleted subsequently to comply with GDPR.
27 +The experiment will be recorded in the form of audio recording which are to be transcribed afterwards. Naturally, the recordings will be deleted subsequently to comply with GDPR.
31 31  
32 -The last question is also exploratory. Where subjects are divided into groups according to a between-subject design with the purpose of exposing one group to a stationary robot
33 -
34 34  == Tasks ==
35 35  
36 36  We break up our experiment into the following tasks:
... ... @@ -50,8 +50,7 @@
50 50  
51 51  == Measures ==
52 52  
53 -Attentiveness
54 -Questionnaire/(semi-structured) Interview (see [[(Neerincx et al., to appear)>>]])
48 +To measure the effectiveness of our solution, we use a questionnaire. Since people with dementia may experience difficulties with expressing themselves in a conversation, this questionnaire is lead by an interviewer [[(Neerincx et al., to appear)>>]]. A caretaker may also be present to help the person with dementia accurately express themselves.
55 55  
56 56  == Procedure ==
57 57