Changes for page Test

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

From 92.1 to 91.1 From 99.1 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

92.1

edited by Pietro Piccini
on 2022/04/02 14:37

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.Mathieu
++XWiki.PietroPiccini

Content

@@ -64,32 +64,32 @@
  → feelings from the PwD themselves
  → reports from relatives and HCP
  These results will most likely never be yes-no results, but more like clues or hints that show whether some things worked on not, which will be the point of our discussion.
++NB: This part explains what we expect as a kind of result, it will be replaced by actual results after we perform an experiment with the class. There may also be interesting points we did not think about.
  == Discussion ==
  * Reliability: Yes. One could replicate the same experiment with other patients.
--* Validity: TBD. (This this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we cannot really estimate this.)
--* Biases: TBD.(This this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we cannot really estimate this.)
++* 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 efforts 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.
  == Conclusions ==
--(Since this ideal evaluation has not been conducted, we do not have conclusions to be drawn.)
--
  = Feasible evaluation (students) =
  == Problem statement and research questions ==
--For the prototype that we have designed now, and for a smaller scope evaluation, the research questions are smaller-scope versions of our main research questions for the previous part.
--We also cannot test all our claims during only a short evaluation session with students.
++This project uses a Social Cognitive Engineering (SCE) approach to guide the design and research process. The SCE method provides a systematic approach to our study of robots for PwDs. The main goal of our application is to improve the well-being of the person with dementia (PwD) and of those living with them.
--1. Are the participants able to use our prototype smoothly?
--1. Does the prototype improve the autonomy of the patient on a specific activity?
--1. Does the prototype improve the emotional state of the participant after completing a specific activity?
++For the prototype that we have designed now, these are some research questions that we want to address.
++1. Are the different stakeholders able to use our prototype smoothly?
++1. Does the prototype allow the PwD greater autonomy in their day-to-day life?
++1. Does the prototype improve the emotional state of the PwD and their relatives?
++
  Based on these questions and our evaluation setting, we can evaluate some of our claims from our Claim page.
 . CL01: The PwD becomes aware of Pepper's presence.
@@ -107,18 +107,22 @@
  == 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.
++In our situation, we recruit 20 students in our class to simulate the research. Since they are not real PwD, we ask them to act as if they were in home settings and we observe their behavior and expression. These data will also be reviewed after the evaluation to obtain the data and feedback.
++==== Questionnaires ====
++
++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 with the only exception being the additional remarks field at the end of the system assessment questionnaire.
++
  **Affect assessment**
--The affect assessment questionnaire asks the participant to describe their mood. The questionnaire is given two times: once before the experiments and once right after. The purpose of this questionnaire is to compare the mood experienced by the participant before the interaction with Pepper and after. The idea is to assess the effect of the activity. The questionnaire has six questions each designed to measure the level of a certain feeling experienced at the moment of filling the questionnaire. The six feelings we take into consideration are evaluated from the following statements:
++The affect assessment questionnaire asks the participant to describe their mood and feelings experienced during a task. The questionnaire is given two times: once before the experiments and once right after. The purpose of this questionnaire is to compare the feelings experienced by the participant before the interaction with Pepper and after to study how Pepper influences the participant's feelings. The questionnaire has six questions each designed to measure the level of a certain feeling experienced at the moment of filling the questionnaire. The six feelings we take into consideration are evaluated from the following statements:
--1. I feel sad.
--1. I feel content.
--1. I feel calm.
--1. I feel tired.
--1. I feel nervous.
--1. I feel caring.
++1. I feel sad
++1. I feel content
++1. I feel calm
++1. I feel tired
++1. I feel nervous
++1. I feel caring
  **System assessment**
@@ -125,8 +125,8 @@
  The system assessment questionnaire is given after the interaction with Pepper and its purpose is to assess the participant's experience with Pepper in more detail. The questionnaire has fourteen questions which are designed to answer research questions as described below:
 . I like gardening
--1. I would have known how to do the whole task without Pepper.
 . I think Pepper made the task easier for me.
++1. I would have known how to do the whole task without Pepper.
 . Pepper was easy to understand.
 . I enjoyed the task more than if I had had to do it alone.
 . I am pleased that Pepper reminded me to do the activity.
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@
  Research questions:
--1. To what extent did Pepper improve the task's experience? [Questions: 3,4,5,10,11,12]
++1. To what extent did Pepper improve the task's experience? [Questions: 2,3,4,5,10,11,12]
 . To what extent did Pepper improve the participant's autonomy and perception of control? [Questions: 6, 8, 9]
 . To what extent did Pepper improve the participant's sense of accomplishment? [Questions: 7]
 . Did the participant perceive Pepper as a social agent? [Questions: 13, 14]
@@ -151,47 +151,45 @@
  == 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.
--Roleplaying PwDs may be difficult for students, especially for those who have not followed the course. For this reason, and in order not to introduce an extra bias "knows about dementia"/"does not know about dementia", we decided to ask the students to just act as students.
++For this study, we simulate the real research by including 24 students from TU Delft. One third of them were female and two thirds male, so gender balance was decent. The students were not asked to roleplay someone with dementia, but simply to follow the experiment and do the activity.
  == Experimental design ==
--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.
++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. Furthermore, every PwD may have different issues in their day-to-day life, while also not having the same living conditions (alone, living with husband, family, etc), thus would require a different treatment. But in our setting, we use the same setting for every participant.
  == 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.
++All participants will go through our designed testing process, which includes medication/meal/activity reminder and activity breakdown.
++Medication/meal/activity reminder: The robot will remind the patient of daily activities, through which we can see the effectiveness according to their reactions.
++Activity breakdown: In this part, the robot will break down some complex tasks into a list of simple tasks and PwDs can follow the steps to accomplish complex tasks.
++
  == 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.
++We are planning to make behavioural and emotional measurements.
++Behavioral measurements are the actions that the PwD is going to perform during the week, so it can be considered as subjective quantitative data. This will involve the relatives, the HCP and the PwD themselves to quantify whether the use of Pepper did actually result in an increase in autonomy for the PwD.
++Emotional measurements are more related to state of mind, change of expression and mood, so it can be considered as qualitative data. This can be measured by frequent talks with the PwD, either by the relatives or the HCP.
++Measures will be done by oral discussions with the PwD, HCP and relatives.
  == Procedure ==
--Before the experiment, we explain to the participants the purpose of our evaluation (context of SCE class, our prototype).
--We tell them that we will gather data in the questionnaires, that the data are fully anonymized and will only be used for our result analysis in this course.
--We also briefly explain to them how Pepper works, especially that she only listens when the eyes are blue.
--After the explanation, the participant can fill the consent form and the first affect questionnaire.
--Then, the experiment starts. The experiment is conducted in autonomy between the participant and Pepper. We only intervene if asked by the participant or if something is going wrong with the experiment.
--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.
++At the start of the evaluation, all participants will be gathered in the same room, together with the researchers and relatives. We will explain the whole evaluation process, provide simple instructions, explain that participation in the evaluations is voluntary, and participants are free to stop the evaluation at any time. Then, we will explain how the gathered data will be analyzed and help us to improve our prototype. All data will be kept private. We will also emphasize that if there is anything the participants dislike, they should let us know. The purpose of the study is to find out what they think of the prototype, and their honesty is greatly appreciated. Then, we will ask them to sign the consent form.
++We will simulate a home setting, which is the most common scenario for PwDs. All PwDs are going to complete the evaluation separately.
++Our robot will give corresponding prompts. For example, “It’s time to have lunch”, “Medicine time!”, “Today is your birthday. Happy Birthday!”.
++We will record the reaction and behavior of participants after they heard the prompts.
++To test the activity breakdown function, our robot will choose a relatively complex task to perform, such as making a paper plane, doing some exercise. Our robot will break it down into simple steps.
++Record the reactions of participants and evaluate how is the activity accomplished.
++
  == Material ==
--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.
--1. Questionnaires. There are three questionnaires to answer (mood 1, mood 2, system). They are also accessed online via a QR code.
++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.
 . 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).
--1. 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.
++=== mood questionnaire results ===
--
--
--=== Affect assessment ===
--
  [[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/mood_questionnaire.html]]
  [[image:mood.svg]]
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
  <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>
++<h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution before and after the interaction with Pepper is the same</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
@@ -258,9 +258,6 @@
  {{/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.
--
  {{html}}
  <!DOCTYPE html>
  <html>
@@ -286,7 +286,7 @@
  <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>
++<h6><i>H0</i>: The mood distribution after the interaction with Pepper for people who like gardening and people who don't like gardening is the same</h6>
  <table>
    <tr>
@@ -324,254 +324,34 @@
  {{/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.
++=== System questionnaire results ===
--
--=== System assessment ===
--
  [[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_1.html]]
  [[image:group1.svg]]
--
--{{html}}
--<!DOCTYPE html>
--<html>
--<head>
--<style>
--table {
--  font-family: arial, sans-serif;
--  border-collapse: collapse;
--  width: 100%;
--}
--
--td, th {
--  border: 1px solid #dddddd;
--  text-align: left;
--  padding: 8px;
--}
--
--tr:nth-child(even) {
--  background-color: #dddddd;
--}
--</style>
--</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 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>
--    <th>Pepper was easy to understand.</th>
--    <th>I am pleased that Pepper reminded me to do the activity.</th>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>p-value</th>
--    <td>0.759</td>
--    <td>0.462</td>
--    <td>0.668</td>
--    <td>0.830</td>
--    <td>0.927</td>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>statistics</th>
--    <td>-0.306</td>
--    <td>-0.734</td>
--    <td>-0.428</td>
--    <td>-0.214</td>
--    <td>-0.0918</td>
--  </tr>
--
--</table>
--
--</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.
--
  [[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_2.html]]
  [[image:group2.svg]]
--
--{{html}}
--<!DOCTYPE html>
--<html>
--<head>
--<style>
--table {
--  font-family: arial, sans-serif;
--  border-collapse: collapse;
--  width: 100%;
--}
--
--td, th {
--  border: 1px solid #dddddd;
--  text-align: left;
--  padding: 8px;
--}
--
--tr:nth-child(even) {
--  background-color: #dddddd;
--}
--</style>
--</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 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>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>p-value</th>
--    <td>0.0982</td>
--    <td>0.220</td>
--    <td>0.581</td>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>statistics</th>
--    <td>-1.653</td>
--    <td>-1.224</td>
--    <td>0.551</td>
--  </tr>
--
--</table>
--
--</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.
--
  [[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_3.html]]
  [[image:group3.svg]]
--{{html}}
--<!DOCTYPE html>
--<html>
--<head>
--<style>
--table {
--  font-family: arial, sans-serif;
--  border-collapse: collapse;
--  width: 100%;
--}
--
--td, th {
--  border: 1px solid #dddddd;
--  text-align: left;
--  padding: 8px;
--}
--
--tr:nth-child(even) {
--  background-color: #dddddd;
--}
--</style>
--</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 felt annoyed by Pepper.</th>
--    <th>I felt frustrated by the task.</th>
--    <th>I felt pressured by Pepper.</th>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>p-value</th>
--    <td>0.951</td>
--    <td>0.358</td>
--    <td>0.926</td>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>statistics</th>
--    <td>0.0612</td>
--    <td>0.918</td>
--    <td>-0.0918</td>
--  </tr>
--
--</table>
--
--</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.
--
  [[interactive version>>https://pietro99.github.io/SCE/graphs/first_questionnaire_4.html]]
  [[image:group4.svg]]
++Since each PwD has its own state of dementia and personal issues, it is very difficult to get uniform results, especially since they are collected orally.
++Getting very nice, fully robust and reliable results, is merely a hope and a dream.
++However, we can try to consider the main trends that we are interested in.
++Thus, the results wil be mainly focused on:
++- How much autonomy did the PwD gain?
++→ what did the HCP, relatives and PwD report
++→ how many tasks did they perform that they didn't do previously
++→ did the relatives feel they had more time for themselves
++- Did their emotional state improve?
++→ feelings from the PwD themselves
++→ reports from relatives and HCP
++These results will most likely never be yes-no results, but more like clues or hints that show whether some things worked on not, which will be the point of our discussion.
++NB: This part explains what we expect as kind of results, it will be replaced by actual results after we perform an experiment with the class. There may also be interesting points we did not think about.
--{{html}}
--<!DOCTYPE html>
--<html>
--<head>
--<style>
--table {
--  font-family: arial, sans-serif;
--  border-collapse: collapse;
--  width: 100%;
--}
--
--td, th {
--  border: 1px solid #dddddd;
--  text-align: left;
--  padding: 8px;
--}
--
--tr:nth-child(even) {
--  background-color: #dddddd;
--}
--</style>
--</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>Pepper cared about helping me.</th>
--    <th>I would trust Pepper with more important activities.</th>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>p-value</th>
--    <td>0.854</td>
--    <td>0.0297</td>
--  </tr>
--  <tr>
--    <th>statistics</th>
--    <td>0.183</td>
--    <td>-2.173</td>
--  </tr>
--
--</table>
--
--</body>
--</html>
--
--{{/html}}
--
--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.
@@ -581,25 +581,3 @@
  * 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.
  == 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.
--
--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.
--
--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.