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

...	...	@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
14	14
15	15	= Method =
16	16
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.
	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.
18	18
19	19
20	20	== Participants ==
...	...	@@ -67,7 +67,6 @@
67	67
68	68	= Results =
69	69
70		-Questionnaire results hier
71	71	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.
72	72
73	73	{{html}}
...	...	@@ -107,14 +107,19 @@
107	107	</table>
108	108	{{/html}}
109	109
110		-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.
111		-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.
112		-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.
113	113
114	114
115		-
116	116	= Discussion =
117	117
	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 can conclude 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.
118	118
	116	+== Inclusivity ==
119	119
	118	+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.
	119	+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.
	120	+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.
	121	+
	122	+
	123	+
120	120	= Conclusions =