Changes for page Test
Last modified by Andrei Stefan on 2022/04/04 13:38
From version
102.1


edited by Andrei Stefan
on 2022/04/04 13:37
on 2022/04/04 13:37
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version
103.1

edited by Andrei Stefan
on 2022/04/04 13:38
on 2022/04/04 13:38
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -100,12 +100,12 @@ 100 100 101 101 = Results = 102 102 103 -[[image:result2.png||height=" 200px"]]103 +[[image:result2.png||height="300px"]] 104 104 From the left figure, we can see the distribution of the number of correct answers. The average score of all participants is 3.6 among 6 questions. For group A, the average score is 3.3 and for group B the average score is 3.8. This bias can be explained because our group size is not large enough to eliminate the various memory ability. but we can also find that all participants in group A can learn something because they have no 0 scores but several participants in group B got 0 scores. In this degree, we can show that our robot does help in memory. 105 105 106 106 From the middle figure, we can find that people in group A tend to think our robot can help improve the memory task and only a few of them thought our robot is annoying, as shown in the right figure. 107 107 108 -[[image:result4.png||height=" 200px"]]108 +[[image:result4.png||height="300px"]] 109 109 As shown in the above figure, group A with our intelligent robot gave our robot an average score of 66.7, and group B with the dumb robot gave 58.2. In this scale, we can see that participants are more willing to play with our intelligent robot. 110 110 111 111 Also, we collect some feedback from the participants. Most of them liked the appearance of the robot which is consistent with the reasons we choose the NAO. People are more engaged and willing to interact with a humanoid robot. Some of them complained about the speech recognition of this robot.