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.Tim_Huisman2

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 ==
...	...	@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
24	24
25	25	== Experimental design ==
26	26
27		-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. In addition to the questionnaire, notes will be taken during the experiment of the observations of the participant's interactions with WAF (Walking Assisting Friend).
	27	+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. In addition to the questionnaire, notes will be taken during the experiment of the observations of the participant's interactions with WAF.
28	28
29	29	== Ethical Approval ==
30	30
...	...	@@ -36,17 +36,13 @@
36	36
37	37	* Walking a route
38	38	* Wandering off during a walk
39		-* Falling and alerting a caretaker
40	40
41	41	Walking a route
42		-The person with dementia will walk a route guided by either a caretaker or by the MiRo.
	41	+The person with dementia will walk a route guided by either a caretaker or by WAF.
43	43
44	44	Wandering off during a walk
45		-A person with dementia may become lost in their current surroundings. They might wander off from the predetermined route. Depending on the study group, either the caretaker or the MiRo will guide the person back to the route.
	44	+A person with dementia may become lost in their current surroundings. They might wander off from the predetermined route. Depending on the study group, either the caretaker or WAF will guide the person back to the route.
46	46
47		-Falling and alerting a caretaker
48		-When a person with dementia gets in trouble when walking around, it is very important that they receive immediate attention.
49		-
50	50	== Measures ==
51	51
52	52	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.
...	...	@@ -53,22 +53,20 @@
53	53
54	54	== Procedure ==
55	55
56		-The procedure is that the person with dementia is walking with the Miro. The PwD is given the MiRo and the bracelet/leash, the MiRo has a pre-programmed route to walk. The PwD is asked to walk with the dog. While they are walking the dog, they are observed, preferably by cameras as to simulate the situation how the MiRo should be used. The emotional state of the PwD is actively monitored by looking at facial expressions. Furthermore, the researchers will actively check how easily the PwD interact with the MiRo to check the familiarity. When the PwD is done walking, some small questions will be asked to check the satisfaction, autonomy and familiarity.
	52	+The procedure is that the person with dementia is walking with WAF. The PwD is given WAF and the proximity, WAF has a pre-programmed route to walk. The PwD is asked to walk with the dog. While they are walking the dog, they are observed by a separate observer, carefully noting down any remarkable events. The emotional state of the PwD is actively monitored by looking at facial expressions. Furthermore, the researchers will actively check how easily the PwD interact with WAF to check the familiarity. When the PwD is done walking, some small questions will be asked to check the satisfaction, autonomy and familiarity.
57	57
58		-Functions like when an elderly person falls or when they walk the wrong direction will not forcibly be tested with PwD as this might create a dangerous situation. These functions will be tested in advance with the use of "Dogfeeding". Other people from the development-team will test these functions.
	54	+Functions like when an elderly person falls or when they walk in the wrong direction will not forcibly be tested with PwD as this might create a dangerous situation. These functions will be tested in advance with the use of "Dogfeeding". Other people from the development team will test these functions.
59	59
60	60	== Material ==
61	61
62	62	The items necessary for the tests are the following
63	63
64		-* MiRo + bracelet/leash
65		-* Camera to observe
66		-* Caretaker in a nearby room in case of emergency
	60	+* A MiRo + bracelet
	61	+* Caretaker
67	67
68	68	= Results =
69	69
70		-Questionnaire results hier
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.
	65	+We asked participants about their 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}}
74	74	<table width='80%'>
...	...	@@ -107,6 +107,18 @@
107	107	</table>
108	108	{{/html}}
109	109
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+= Discussion =
	107	+
	108	+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?"
	109	+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.
	110	+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.
	111	+
	112	+
	113	+
	114	+==== Inclusivity ====
	115	+
110	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	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	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.
...	...	@@ -113,8 +113,9 @@
113	113
114	114
115	115
116		-= Discussion =
	122	+= Conclusions =
	123	+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.
117	117
118	118
119	119
120		-= Conclusions =
	127	+