Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -105,6 +105,7 @@
105	105	1. CL11: The PwD feels content.
106	106	There is a question related to this in the questionnaire.
107	107
	108	+
108	108	== Method ==
109	109
110	110	In order to collect qualitative data, we prepared two questionnaires to give to the participants: the affect assessment questionnaire and the system assessment questionnaire. All questionnaire questions are expressed in the form of statements and the participant can express one out of seven levels of agreement/disagreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The only exception is the additional remarks field at the end of the system assessment questionnaire, where the participants can freely put any comment/remark/feedback they have on the experiment.
...	...	@@ -148,7 +148,9 @@
148	148	1. How was Pepper's ability to guide the participant through the task? [Questions: 4]
149	149
150	150	Question 1 is used to take into consideration the expected baseline enjoyment of the task for each participant.
	152	+We also intended to use question 2 for similar subgroups, but there were not enough different answers to get a significant number of participants in each subgroup.
151	151
	154	+
152	152	== Participants ==
153	153
154	154	In our situation, our participants are 24 students from TUD. Most of them come from Computer Science and/or from the SCE class. One third of them are female and two thirds male, so gender balance is decent.
...	...	@@ -158,15 +158,18 @@
158	158
159	159	Since our evaluating process is relatively short, we use within-subject, which means each participant goes through all conditions. In this way, our experiment tends to have more statistical power and less variability.
160	160
	164	+
161	161	== Tasks ==
162	162
163	163	All participants will go through our designed testing process, which combines a calendar event reminder and an activity breakdown.
164	164	Pepper will propose the activity to the participant, then go step by step with them through the activity.
165	165
	170	+
166	166	== Measures ==
167	167
168	168	We measure the mood of the participants through the affect assessment questionnaires. We also measure some aspects of the interaction between Pepper and the participant through the system assessment questionnaire. Both are qualitative data, as the participant gives an answer ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
169	169
	175	+
170	170	== Procedure ==
171	171
172	172	Before the experiment, we explain to the participants the purpose of our evaluation (context of SCE class, our prototype).
...	...	@@ -177,6 +177,7 @@
177	177	After the activity is finished by the participant, they fill the second affect questionnaire and the system assessment questionnaire.
178	178	After this is done, we thank them for their participation and the evaluation session is over.
179	179
	186	+
180	180	== Material ==
181	181
182	182	1. Consent form. To protect the privacy of participants and ensure the evaluation process goes smoothly, we will ask participants to sign a consent form, indicating they are willing to take part in the evaluation and the data gathered from the experiment will be analyzed by researchers. The consent form is accessed online via a QR code.
...	...	@@ -184,6 +184,7 @@
184	184	1. Pepper robot. Our robot is programmed using Choregraphe. The robot will have the same behaviour for every participant. However, the input data will be entered by the HCP (and potentially the relatives).
185	185	1. Gardening stuff. In order to conduct the activity, we bought and brought basic stuff required for gardening (soil, pot, seeds, etc).
186	186
	194	+
187	187	== Results ==
188	188
189	189	The following sections contains the results gather from the affect and system assessment. Apart from the printed version being included below, the results are also included as interactive graphs. To get a better version with more information (data point information on mouse hovering for instance), simply click the provided link for each graph.
...	...	@@ -593,6 +593,7 @@
593	593
594	594	This graph shows that the trust in Pepper was highly dependent on whether the participants enjoyed the activity or not.
595	595
	604	+
596	596	== Discussion ==
597	597
598	598	=== Evaluation key properties ===
...	...	@@ -619,7 +619,6 @@
619	619	Regarding social assessment, the participants barely agree that Pepper cared about helping them. This may be caused by the fact that most of them are Computer Science and/or SCE class students. Such students are very conscious that Pepper is nothing more than the behaviour we implemented. Some participants even tried to find edge cases to test the answers of Pepper. It would be very useful to conduct the same experiment on average people randomly chosen to see whether the answers are the same. If they are, then that would be a good point to improve.
620	620	Finally, still in terms of social assessment, whether the participants would trust Pepper with more important activities greatly depends on whether they like gardening or not, which highlights the importance of having specific tasks for the specific patients.
621	621
622		-
623	623	=== Observations ===
624	624
625	625	We also made some observations while monitoring the evaluation sessions.
...	...	@@ -627,13 +627,6 @@
627	627	We also noticed that participants had some difficulties interacting with Pepper in the beginning. Specifically, and although we did mention it to them, they very often spoke while the eyes were not blue. Since Pepper was not listening, they often got confused and did not know what to do. Most often, they simply repeated their answer, and then it worked. Sometimes, we had to remind them about the blue eyes. Usually, after a couple of steps of the activity, they got used to it. Overall, the ease of interaction with Pepper greatly improved over time.
628	628
629	629
630		-
631		-
632		-
633		-
634		-
635		-
636		-
637	637	== Conclusions ==
638	638
639	639	The results from the mood questionnaire seem to support our claims CL10: the PwD feels reassured and CL11: the PwD feels content.
...	...	@@ -647,6 +647,7 @@
647	647
648	648	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.
649	649
	651	+
650	650	== Limitations ==
651	651
652	652	Although there seems to be a slight general trend that shows that our claim are satisfied, there are many limitations to take into account that reduce the significance of the results.