Changes for page Test

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

From 97.1 to 98.1

From version

98.1

edited by Mathieu Jung-Muller
on 2022/04/03 14:02

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

117.1

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

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -105,6 +105,7 @@
 . CL11: The PwD feels content.
  There is a question related to this in the questionnaire.
++
  == Method ==
  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 @@
 . How was Pepper's ability to guide the participant through the task? [Questions: 4]
  Question 1 is used to take into consideration the expected baseline enjoyment of the task for each participant.
++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.
++
  == Participants ==
  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 @@
  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.
++
  == Tasks ==
  All participants will go through our designed testing process, which combines a calendar event reminder and an activity breakdown.
  Pepper will propose the activity to the participant, then go step by step with them through the activity.
++
  == Measures ==
  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.
++
  == Procedure ==
  Before the experiment, we explain to the participants the purpose of our evaluation (context of SCE class, our prototype).
@@ -177,6 +177,7 @@
  After the activity is finished by the participant, they fill the second affect questionnaire and the system assessment questionnaire.
  After this is done, we thank them for their participation and the evaluation session is over.
++
  == Material ==
 . 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.
@@ -184,16 +184,16 @@
 . 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).
 . Gardening stuff. In order to conduct the activity, we bought and brought basic stuff required for gardening (soil, pot, seeds, etc).
++
  == Results ==
--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.
++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.
--
--
  === Affect assessment ===
--[[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
++[[Affect assessment, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
  [[image:mood.svg]]
++Figure 1: Graphical results of affect assessment before and after conducting the evaluation activity with Pepper.
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
@@ -219,12 +219,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Signed-rank test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution before and after the interaction with Pepper is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i>Wilcoxon Signed-Rank results</i></th>
      <th>I feel caring </th>
      <th>I feel content </th>
      <th>I feel calm </th>
@@ -255,12 +255,14 @@
  </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.
--There are however many biases in these results. The main one that we isolated is that the activity of gardening itself could lead to the mood improvement. For this reason, we made subgroups based on whether the participants liked gardening or not.
++Table 1: Results of wilcoxon statistical test on affect assessment
++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 the interaction with Pepper. The hypothesis H0 is that Pepper does not have any effect, which would mean that 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 slight decrease as well regarding negative feelings. 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.
++
++There however exists an important source of bias in the above mentioned result. The main one that we isolated is that the activity of gardening itself could lead to the mood improvement. For this reason, we made subgroups based on whether the participants liked gardening or not.
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -285,12 +285,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution after the interaction with Pepper for people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum results</i> </th>
      <th>I feel caring </th>
      <th>I feel content </th>
      <th>I feel calm </th>
@@ -321,18 +321,28 @@
  </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.
++Table 2: Results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistical test on affect assessment for people who like vs. dislike gardening
--=== System assessment ===
++In order to analyze the difference in the mood change between people who liked the activity of gardening and people who did not, we divided the assessments 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. Hence, 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.
--[[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
++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.
++
++
++=== System Assessment ===
++
++**Task Guidance Assessment**
++[[System assessment, task guidance questions, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
++The results of the system questionnaire will be divided into four different group with similar questions in each group. This is done to improve the readability of the results and provide a more indepth analysis of various aspects of the system setup.
++
  [[image:group1.svg]]
++Figure 2: Graphical representation of results for task guidance subset of the system assessment, with results shown for people who like vs. dislike gardening, along with the average of the sample.
++The first group, namely task guidance assessment, contains questions aimed at measuring how easy and pleasant was the activity when being guided by Pepper. The responses for this group are around the slightly agree line, a bit higher for the "Pepper was easy to understand" statement and a bit lower for the "I enjoyed the task more than if I had had to do it alone".
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -357,12 +357,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum results</i></th>
      <th>I would have known how to do the whole task without Pepper.</th>
      <th>I think Pepper made the task easier for me.</th>
      <th>I enjoyed the task more than if I had had to do it alone.</th>
@@ -390,14 +390,17 @@
  </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.
++Table 3: Results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistical test on task guidance subset of system assessment for people who like vs. dislike gardening
--[[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_2.html]]
++
++**Accomplishment and Autonomy Assessment**
++[[System assessment, accomplishment and autonomy subset, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_2.html]]
  [[image:group2.svg]]
++Figure 3: Graphical representation of results for accomplishment and autonomy subset of the system assessment, with results shown for people who like vs. dislike gardening, along with the average of the sample.
++The second group, namely the accomplishment and autonomy subset has questions concerning the sense of control and accomplishment felt during the task by the participants. The participants on average responded between slightly agree and agree that completing the task was a good accomplishment and that they felt in control while doing it and a bit lower for the statement "I feel like I have accomplished it myself" suggestingthat it is possible for the participants to feel like Pepper is responsible, at least partially, for the accomplishment of the task.
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
@@ -423,12 +423,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum results </i></th>
      <th>I feel like completing the task was a good accomplishment.</th>
      <th>I feel like I accomplished it myself.</th>
      <th>I felt in control of what I had to do.</th>
@@ -450,15 +450,21 @@
  </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.
++Table 4: Results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistical test on accomplishment and autonomy subset of system assessment for people who like vs. dislike gardening
--[[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_3.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.
++
++
++**Negative Experiences Assessment**
++[[System assessment, negative experiences subset, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_3.html]]
  [[image:group3.svg]]
++Figure 4: Graphical representation of results for negative experiences subset of the system assessment, with results shown for people who like vs. dislike gardening, along with the average of the sample.
++The third group, namely negative experiences subset is used to group together questions that measure negative feeling experiences with Pepper. The results show that the participants on average answered between slightly disagree and disagreed. This suggests that Pepper was not frustrating for most people but only for a small fraction of the participants.
++
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -483,12 +483,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i> Wilcoxon Rank-Sum results </i></th>
      <th>I felt annoyed by Pepper.</th>
      <th>I felt frustrated by the task.</th>
      <th>I felt pressured by Pepper.</th>
@@ -510,14 +510,20 @@
  </body>
  </html>
--
  {{/html}}
++Table 5: Results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistical test on negative experiences subset of system assessment for people who like vs. dislike gardening
++
++
  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.
--[[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_4.html]]
++
++**Social Assessment**
++[[System assessment, social subset, interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_4.html]]
  [[image:group4.svg]]
++Figure 5: Graphical representation of results for social subset of the system assessment, with results shown for people who like vs. dislike gardening, along with the average of the sample.
++The fourth and final group addresses a social subset and is utilized for assessing Pepper's social presence and trustworthiness as felt by the participants. The two statements used are "Pepper cared about helping me" and "I would trust Pepper with more important activities". The responses were on average slightly above the neutral level.
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
@@ -543,12 +543,11 @@
  </head>
  <body>
--<h5>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test</h5>
  <h6><i>H0</i>: The distribution of answers from people who like gardening and people who do not like gardening is the same.</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
--    <th>test results </th>
++    <th><i>Wilcoxon Rank-Sum results</i></th>
      <th>Pepper cared about helping me.</th>
      <th>I would trust Pepper with more important activities.</th>
    </tr>
@@ -567,32 +567,48 @@
  </body>
  </html>
--
  {{/html}}
++Table 5: Results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum statistical test on social subset of system assessment for people who like vs. dislike gardening
++
  This graph shows that the trust in Pepper was highly dependent on whether the participants enjoyed the activity or not.
++
  == Discussion ==
--* Reliability: Yes. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
--* Validity: TBD.
--* Biases: TBD.
--* 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.
++=== Evaluation key properties ===
--== Conclusions ==
++* Reliability: The evaluation is reliable. One could replicate the exact same experiment with other participants.
++* Validity: This evaluation is not really valid. Our feasible evaluation does not have the corresponding target group, and is of a much smaller scope compared to our ideal evaluation. We cannot test all our claims.
++* Biases: The evaluation has large biases. This is discussed more in detail in the limitations where different bias factors are explained.
++* Scope: The evaluation can be generalized to a larger scope, although with a lot of care, since the evaluation is not fully valid.
++* Ecological validity: The evaluation is partially valid in terms of influence from the environment. The affect assessment questionnaire is the same before and after the activity, with the same environment, so the environment is technically not involved in this. However, the system assessment questionnaire does rely on some elements from the environment.
--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.
++=== Results discussion ===
--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.
++As detailed in the results section, the mood of the participants slightly improved between before and after the activity.
++However, based on the Wilcoxon test, the results have only a small significance. Most notably, the significant improvements are only that the participants on average felt more content and less tired. This can be explained by the fact that they enjoyed and got motivated by the activity, but it could also simply be the case of participating in an experiment and testing out the stuff we had prepared for them. Because the participants are not our target group, and although there is a slightly significant result, we cannot really conclude that our activity really is the cause for the mood improvement. More participants and, potentially, control groups would be required to validate the results.
--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.
++In terms of task guidance, the answers are mostly around slightly agree. This means Pepper's impact was quite positive for the participants. Furthermore, participants generally agree that Pepper was easy to understand. This is a good result, but needs to be nuanced: our participants are Masters students so they are probably more used to robots than the average person, thus giving a positive bias in this question.
--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.
++For the accomplishment and autonomy part, the answers are around slightly agree. Participants who like gardening have a slightly better feeling of accomplishment. However, participants who dislike gardening felt more in control. This may be explained by the fact that they are less proactive in the activity because they enjoy it less, so Pepper telling them the task is enough for them. On the other side, participants who like gardening may want to go faster and see Pepper as an unnecessary control.
--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.
++In terms of negative experiences, the answers are between slightly disagree and disagree. This means Pepper did not cause by herself the participants to experience negative feelings, which is already a great result. The participants who like gardening answered a bit lower than those who dislike. This may be explained by the same reason as for the previous part.
++Both results for the accomplishment and autonomy part and the negative experiences part are to be taken with extreme care. Since the participants do not have dementia, their attitude towards the activity is most likely very different than for people affected by dementia.
++
++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.
++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.
++
++=== Observations ===
++
++We also made some observations while monitoring the evaluation sessions.
++Although it did not necessarily reflect in the questionnaires, some participants still found Pepper frustrating or annoying. This was often due to Pepper's speech recognition functions. For instance, a participant would say a positive answer and get into the negative loop because Pepper understood their "yep" as "nope".
++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.
++
++
++== 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.
@@ -602,4 +602,15 @@
  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.
++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.
++
++
++== Limitations ==
++
++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.
++
++1. Students are not the target group, and especially do not have any form of dementia. This means the effect is probably completely different on them than on actual patients.
++1. The evaluation is very generic and does not reflect one of our main functionalities, which is to have a customized agent for a PwD.
++1. Students are Master students at TUD. So they are all studying some field related to engineering. Most of them were even Computer Science students and/or students from the SCE class. This means they globally have a very different understanding and familiarity with robots compared to the rest of the population, causing a big bias in their interaction with Pepper.
++1. The explanation of Pepper was very short (around 1 min), so many participants had some difficulties interacting with Pepper in the beginning. It improved after some activity steps.
++1. Finally, our participants have good intentions and have a positive a priori on our experiment. Therefore, they are more likely to answer with positive results than if they did not know us at all. This again may cause a significant bias in their answers.