Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
17	17
18	18	Besides, Our group decided to use a mixed-method approach for the evaluation.
19	19
20		-* Quantitative data will be derived during the experiment such as the number of mistakes the participant makes during the quiz. The participants were also asked to provide a score based on the given system usability scale^^1^^.
	20	+* Quantitative data will be derived during the experiment such as the number of mistakes the participant makes during the quiz. The participants were also asked to provide a score based on the given system usability scale^^[1]^^.
21	21	* Qualitative data expected to be gathered through questionnaires, such as to what extent participants are satisfied with using the robot, is also adopted for evaluation.
22	22
23	23	By measuring these two types of data, we will manage to assess if our claims are achieved and the research questions are answered.
...	...	@@ -29,7 +29,8 @@
29	29	== Experimental design ==
30	30
31	31	The experiment will be conducted to simulate the reinforcement learning process of musical memory related to daily activities and to investigate if the quiz is indeed able to help with the learning.
32		-All participants would sign a consent form that informed them of the usage of the collected data and our goal of evaluations. In our prototype, users can personalize the association between music and activities based on their existing intrinsic knowledge. But due to the limited time and requiring a comparable result between groups, in evaluation, we forced 6 pieces of music and activities. Participants listened to the music and were asked the remember the associated activities.
	32	+All participants would sign a consent form that informed them of the usage of the collected data and our goal of evaluations. In our prototype, users can personalize the association between music and activities based on their existing intrinsic knowledge. But due to the limited time and requiring a comparable result between groups, in evaluation, we forced 6 pieces of music and activities.
	33	+Participants listened to the music and were asked the remember the associated activities. To this end, they were given a list with the 6 activities. In order to make it more difficult to remember (so they had to pretend less to have dementia), the music corresponding to the activities was played in a different order than that of the activities on the list. Furthermore, the music was quite similar (just instrumental). The users then had 3 minutes to practice with the NAO.
33	33	In the end, the participants would take a quiz to see how much they remembered. They are also asked to fill in a questionnaire including the feeling of the robot and possible feedback.
34	34
35	35	1. How many questions did you answer correctly? (Points from 0-6)
...	...	@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
104	104
105	105	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.
106	106
107		-[[image:result4.png||height="400px"]]
	108	+[[image:result4.png||height="200px"]]
108	108	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.
109	109
110	110	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.