Wiki source code of Pierre Bongrand
Version 24.1 by Pierre Bongrand on 2022/03/22 12:37
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | I am a master student that follows the artificial intelligence track. I took this course for **three reasons**: | ||
| 2 | **Firstly**, as I believe in a future in which both artificial intelligence - both as software and in robotics - and human will have to work together, it seemed like the perfect course to take understand the cooperation of both. | ||
| 3 | **Secondly**, I already took a lot of theoretical courses and it was important for me to do a course that has an important social impact. | ||
| 4 | **Lastly**, as my grandmother just got diagnosed a brain tumour this summer and as I saw her cognitive abilities degrease week by week, it was very special for me to work on a project that targeted people with dementia. | ||
| 5 | |||
| 6 | ==== Week 1==== | ||
| 7 | Since the goal of this project is to develop a prototype that meets a real life need. The field of knowledge is very wide ranging from the types of dementia, and the needs of these people, to the type of activities they want to engage in, to the technologies available to help them. | ||
| 8 | We decided to divide each of these tasks among the six group members. The idea being that each person will do in-depth research in one of the areas and can present it to the group for the weekend. This way the whole group will be proficient on the topic as a whole. | ||
| 9 | |||
| 10 | I chose to work on two aspects: | ||
| 11 | **Location of PwD:** | ||
| 12 | I have listed the advantages, disadvantages and specificities of two settings: health care center, and the patient's home. | ||
| 13 | |||
| 14 | **Interaction Goals:** | ||
| 15 | I researched the needs of people with dementia. I identified three types of goals the chosen robot could fulfil: functional, emotional, and safety. | ||
| 16 | I listed 5 to 10 potential use cases per goal that I found to be either the most important or very original and not already fulfil. | ||
| 17 | |||
| 18 | Finally, I presented this work to the team and we all made choices about: the type of dementia the patient would have, the potential goals and use cases we will focus on, the type of robot to chose. | ||
| 19 | |||
| 20 | Based on my work, we wrote with Sneha and Haoran a first version of: the environment, the stakeholders, the problem scenario, the objectives. We also defined a first use case. | ||
| 21 | |||
| 22 | |||
| 23 | ==== Week 2==== | ||
| 24 | We splitted the team in two subteams. Sneha and I would work on the report while the rest of the group would work on the code. | ||
| 25 | The point of this was that we could both get an idea on how to code our technical solution and define our problem scenario and personas. | ||
| 26 | Sneha and I decided based on a series of argument and by the willingness of the group to implement a solution based on communication that the project will be oriented for patient with early stage and mild dementia. | ||
| 27 | |||
| 28 | Sneha and I defined based on this decision three personas: | ||
| 29 | - Annabelle a 36 years old women with early stage of vascular dementia. | ||
| 30 | - Charles a 80 years old man with mild dementia. | ||
| 31 | - Lucy a healthcare person. | ||
| 32 | |||
| 33 | We made some notes about it and only wrote it in the xWiki the beginning of the following week. | ||
| 34 | |||
| 35 | We improved the report by editing the following sections: | ||
| 36 | - Objectives. We modified our objectives and categorised them in two categories: Increase the life span and Improve quality of life. | ||
| 37 | - | ||
| 38 | ==== Week 3==== | ||
| 39 | Even though we wanted to switch roles week by week so that everyone would be proficient both with the code and the report we didn't as we accumulated a bit of work from the previous week in both subteams. As a result, I worked with Sneha this week on the report and the general goals of the robot. | ||
| 40 | |||
| 41 | We mainly worked on the use cases which was a considerable load of work. | ||
| 42 | As the "technical" subteam gave us some feedback on what was feasible, Sneha and I precised the feasible objectives and came up with 4 different use cases. | ||
| 43 | We defined these use cases, | ||
| 44 | |||
| 45 | |||
| 46 | ==== Week 4==== | ||
| 47 | - Design Patterns | ||
| 48 | - Ontology | ||
| 49 | - Specification->Functions. | ||
| 50 | |||
| 51 | Requirement | ||
| 52 | |||
| 53 | ==== Week 5==== | ||
| 54 | PRESENTATION: | ||
| 55 | - | ||
| 56 | REPORT: | ||
| 57 | - Claims | ||
| 58 | - Requirements | ||
| 59 | - Objectives | ||
| 60 | - Music Management | ||
| 61 | |||
| 62 | I also provided some feedback about the evaluation. The evaluation was first in an ideal setup, and after | ||
| 63 | |||
| 64 | |||
| 65 | |||
| 66 | ==== Week 6==== | ||
| 67 | As many deadlines are approaching at the end of the block and the deliverables for this projects needs to be finished soon, I took a bit of managerial position. | ||
| 68 | |||
| 69 | |||
| 70 | ==== Week 7==== | ||
| 71 | - Ontology | ||
| 72 | - Design pattern | ||
| 73 | |||
| 74 | |||
| 75 | |||
| 76 | ==== Week 8==== | ||
| 77 | |||
| 78 | |||
| 79 | |||
| 80 | |||
| 81 | |||
| 82 | == Personal Reflections== |