Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
	1	+In this section, we will introduce our experimental test set up and motivate our research questions.
	2	+
1	1	= Problem statement and research questions =
2	2
3	3	People with dementia face challenges that were not present in their life before being affected by their condition. This is also influenced by their living situation, since they may live in care homes or dementia centers. To ensure that people with dementia stay safe, activities are usually lead by a caretaker. However, staff has limited time available to spend with each individual person. Group activities or caretaker-lead activities may affect the feeling of autonomy of the person with dementia. Autonomy is one of the key psychological needs described in self-determination theory, which describes how feeling fulfilled is influenced by how much a person feels in control of their own actions. It is important to the mental well-being of people with dementia to keep a sense of autonomy.
...	...	@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
12	12
13	13	= Method =
14	14
15		-To this effect, we would like to invite users to participate in a usability study. In the study, we will assess our research question by dividing the participants into two groups: one with a //caretaker// and one with a //MiRo//. The former group will enact the activity of walking in the current setting and the latter group will do the equivalent with the robot. Afterwards, both groups are assessed by means of Likert-scales to measure the increase.
	17	+To this effect, we would like to invite users to participate in a usability study. In the study, we will assess our research question by dividing the participants into two groups: one with a //caretaker// and one with a //MiRo//. The former group will enact the activity of walking in the current setting and the latter group will do the equivalent with the robot. Afterwards, both groups are assessed by means of Likert-scales to measure the increase. The difference in scores between the caretaker and the MiRo (WAF) setting will then be subjected to a Wilcoxon [[(Conover, 1998, p. 250)>>https://www-wiley-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/en-nl/Practical+Nonparametric+Statistics%2C+3rd+Edition-p-9780471160687]] test to determine whether the increase is statistically significant. If the significance has been demonstrated, then we can reject the null hypothesis: walking with the MiRo will not provide an increased feeling of autonomy compared to walking with a caretaker.
16	16
17	17
18	18	== Participants ==
...	...	@@ -65,7 +65,6 @@
65	65
66	66	= Results =
67	67
68		-Questionnaire results hier
69	69	We asked participants about there sense of being in charge, happiness, safety and trust when walking with MiRo and with the caretaker. In the graphs below we show each sense compared between the two guiding agents.
70	70
71	71	{{html}}
...	...	@@ -105,6 +105,18 @@
105	105	</table>
106	106	{{/html}}
107	107
	109	+
	110	+
	111	+= Discussion =
	112	+
	113	+Through this test, we aim to answer the question: "Does walking with the MiRo increase the perceived autonomy of people with dementia, compared to walking under guidance of a caretaker?"
	114	+We see that in the current state of our prototype, this is not the case. The caretaker is preferred when asked if the user feels in charge, feels safe, and feels trustworthy. However, we note that the MiRo does slightly outperform the caretaker in regards to happiness. We think that further development is needed to accurately gauge if walking with a MiRo will eventually score equally or better compared to walking with a caretaker.
	115	+We see flaws in the limited testing setup that was available to us. With only eight participants, it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions from the experiment. Additionally, these participants were actors and not real people with dementia, which may have caused bias in our results. Finally, while we intended to have the participants walk through a hallway accompanied by MiRo, we only had a meeting room available to conduct the experiment in.
	116	+
	117	+
	118	+
	119	+==== Inclusivity ====
	120	+
108	108	In addition to the questionnaire, we conducted a short interview with our participant who is hard-of-hearing. Their study was conducted without them wearing their hearing aids.
109	109	We asked them if they thought their experience would differ if they were wearing their hearing aids. Their answer was that the biggest thing was that in a real scenario, the wristband doesn't give you enough information about what to do. It only tells you that you are something wrong. They commented that if they were 83, they would not have enough direction from this, compared to someone who could hear sounds: MiRo could direct them back by barking at the user, for example. However, they mention that if you are severely hearing impaired, there is probably nothing you can do other than vibrating the wristband.
110	110	We asked them how we could make it more inclusive. They mention that the robot is small and not very visible, which might cause problems for people with a sight impairment. People who are not familiar with walking dogs would also not naturally keep looking at MiRo. They recommended using a larger robot.
...	...	@@ -111,8 +111,9 @@
111	111
112	112
113	113
114		-= Discussion =
	127	+= Conclusions =
	128	+In conclusion, the prototype as-is is not capable of outperforming the benefits of a traditional walk with a caretaker. Additional work is needed to bring the prototype to a state of usability where users walking with MiRo can feel trust, happiness, safety, and being in charge. We would like to conduct a similar experiment with real people with dementia, in a setting that is familiar to them, to properly simulate a realistic use case. In the future, we would increase the number of participants to gain better insights into the usability of our prototype.
115	115
116	116
117	117
118		-= Conclusions =
	132	+