Changes for page Test

Last modified by Mathieu Jung-Muller on 2022/04/04 13:52

From 100.1 to 99.1 From 109.1 to 108.1

From version

108.1

edited by Pietro Piccini
on 2022/04/03 15:56

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

100.1

edited by Mathieu Jung-Muller
on 2022/04/03 14:05

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
--XWiki.PietroPiccini
++XWiki.Mathieu

Content

@@ -188,12 +188,6 @@
  We produced our results as interactive graphs. Only a printed version is shown below. To get a better version with more information (data point information on mouse hovering for instance), click the provided link for each graph.
--For the statistical test, we used the Wilcoxon test because we do not assume that our data is normally distributed.
--we used the Wilcoxon Signed-rank test to measure the statistical significance of the mood change before and after Pepper's interaction because the data comes from the same group of participants.
--To measure the statistical significance between two different groups (liking gardening group and disliking gardening group) we use the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test.
--The statistics value of the test is the sum of the difference in the rank.
--the p-value is the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the one we obtained given that the null hypothesis is true. We decided to set a threshold of 5% to claim statistical significance.
--
  === Affect assessment ===
  [[Affect assessment, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
@@ -259,6 +259,7 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  The hypothesis H0 is that Pepper does not have any effect. In this case, the questionnaires 1 and 2 should give the exact same values for each of the six feelings. However, the graphs and table below show that there is a slight increase regarding positive feelings, and a sligt decrease as well regarding negative feelings.
@@ -324,6 +324,7 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  We did not notice any relevant pattern indicating a significant difference between "like gardening" and "dislike gardening" groups. It seems to be that this is not the cause of the mood improvement.
@@ -334,6 +334,7 @@
  [[System assessment, first subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
  [[image:group1.svg]]
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -391,14 +391,15 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  In this first system assessment graph, it is shown that participants slightly agree that Pepper made the task easier for them, and generally agree that she was easy to understand.
--
  [[System assessment, second subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_2.html]]
  [[image:group2.svg]]
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -450,12 +450,12 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  The sense of accomplishment is slightly higher for people who like gardening that for those who do not. It is globally around slightly agree.
  An interesting fact to notice is that participants who do not like gardening felt more in control of what they had to do.
--
  [[System assessment, third subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_3.html]]
  [[image:group3.svg]]
@@ -510,14 +510,15 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  The participants globally disagree that the presence of Pepper annoyed, frustrated or pressured them. Those who like gardening actually had a bit more negative feelings regarding the presence of Pepper than those who dislike gardening.
--
  [[System assessment, fourth subset of questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_4.html]]
  [[image:group4.svg]]
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -566,6 +566,7 @@
  </body>
  </html>
++
  {{/html}}
  This graph shows that the trust in Pepper was highly dependent on whether the participants enjoyed the activity or not.
@@ -578,18 +578,19 @@
  * Scope: No. It would be very difficult to generalize the results, since each prototype is built for a special patient. However, if the results conclude that the customized prototypes did improve the well-being of the people, then similar effort to customize Pepper for more patients should produce similar effects.
  * Ecological validity: Yes. Since we compare "without Pepper" (BEFORE) and "with Pepper" (AFTER) in a similar environment (i.e., for everything but Pepper), the results are not dependent on the environment.
--We analyzed the participants' moods before and after the interaction with Pepper in order to be able to observe positive and negative changes that are caused by Pepper. the results showed that, in general, there is a slight increase in positive moods and a slight decrease in negative moods. The Wilcoxon Signed-rank demonstrated that the only statistically significant change happened for contentness and tiredness based on a p-value threshold of 0.05.
++== Conclusions ==
--It is often the case that PwDs have to perform tasks that are not enjoyable for them such as taking medicines or performing routine activities. In order to analyze the difference in the mood change between people who liked the activity and people who didn't we divided into two groups and performed a Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test. The results show that only the contentness mood shows a statistically significant difference between the two groups.
--This confirms that PwDs can potentially benefit from a boost of energy from interacting with Pepper and, if the activity is enjoyable, a general improvement in contentness as well.
++The results from the mood questionnaire seem to support our claims CL10: the PwD feels reassured and CL11: the PwD feels content.
++Although there are many potential biases, there seems to be a general trend which is that the mood of the participants slightly improved thanks to the activity.
++All participants, except one who asked to leave the experiment early, finished the whole activity we had prepared for them during the session. This means the participants were able to perform activity steps told by Pepper. This supports our claim CL03: the PwD performs an activity step.
++No participant failed to notice Pepper or did not hear what she was saying after the experiment had started. This supports our claim CL01: the PwD becomes aware of Pepper's presence.
++From the system assessment questionnaire, participants quite agree that completing the task was a good accomplishment for them. This supports our claim CL08: the PwD feels accomplished.
++We did not have any question explictly aimed at targeting our claim CL08. However, frustration, annoyance and pressure are often linked to a lack of understanding from the other part. We can combine these with the question about whether Pepper cared about helping the participants, and with our observations during the experiment. When aggregated together, it seems that generally speaking, the participants felt understood. This supports our claim CL08: the PwD feels understood. However, we did notice frustration a couple of times from the participants, because of Pepper's speech recognition system.
--
--== Conclusions ==
--
  The results from the mood questionnaire seem to support our claims CL10: the PwD feels reassured and CL11: the PwD feels content.
  Although there are many potential biases, there seems to be a general trend which is that the mood of the participants slightly improved thanks to the activity.