Changes for page Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -103,10 +103,29 @@
103	103	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.
104	104
105	105	[[image:result4.png||height="400px"]]
	106	+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.
106	106
	108	+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.
	109	+
107	107	= Discussion =
108	108
	112	+We assume that our intelligent robot can help people strengthen the association between music and activities. The result of average correct answers didn't approve this. Several reasons existed. First, our participants were not real PwD and their memory abilities vary. Our group size(about 10 for each group) was not large enough. Also, Participants were only given a limited time. The short duration of the quiz and not using personalised music also accounted for this biased result. However, the overall usability score between the two groups and some quantitative results above also shows that our claim PwD are more willing to play with our intelligent robot and PwD are happy to use the robot could still hold.
	113	+
	114	+Besides, our robot was limited by several key factors,
	115	+
	116	+* Due to the limited time and resources, we could not evaluate all the claims that were made in the use cases. This limited the broadness of our conclusion about the effectiveness of the system.
	117	+* As mentioned before, the small sample size made the accuracy of the result doubtable. Having a larger and more diverse sample group would allow us to more accurately predict real-world usage.
	118	+* The accuracy of the speech recognition system in the NAO and the availability of test subjects and robots also limited the evaluation.
	119	+
	120	+In the future, we could improve in the following aspects,
	121	+
	122	+* Test a full implementation of the system in a real setting with PwD.
	123	+* Research should also be done to look if the robot is actually necessary, or if the advantage of the system could be achieved by a cheaper alternative, such as a virtual robot on a tablet. (Also inspired by the feedback we got. One participant asked why we didn't create an APP.)
	124	+
	125	+
	126	+
109	109	= Conclusion =
110	110
111	111	= Reference =
	130	+
112	112	Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574-594.