Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 10.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/03/26 13:49
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 6.1 Icon
edited by Clara Stiller
on 2022/03/25 10:57
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.Vishruty
1 +XWiki.ClaraStiller
Content
... ... @@ -8,18 +8,12 @@
8 8  
9 9  **Research Questions (RQ):**
10 10  
11 -1. What percentage of people are prevented from going out unsupervised? (Quantitative) -> CL01,CL05
12 -2. How does the interaction change the participant's mood? -> CL02
13 -3. Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention? -> CL03
14 -4. How do the participants react to the music? -> CL04
15 -5. Does the activity that the robot suggests prevent people from wandering/ leaving? -> CL06
11 +1. What percentage of people are prevented from going out unsupervised? (Quantitative)
12 +1. How does the interaction change the participant's mood?
13 +1. Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention?
14 +1. Does the activity that the robot suggests prevent people from wandering/ leaving?
15 +1. How do the participants react to the music?
16 16  
17 -//Future research questions//
18 -1. Does the interaction with Pepper make PwD come back to reality? -> CL07
19 -2. Does the interaction with Pepper make PwD feel he/she is losing freedom? -> CL08
20 -3. Does preventing the participant from going out alone make them feel dependent? -> CL09
21 -
22 -
23 23  = Method =
24 24  
25 25  A between-subject study with students who play the role of having dementia. Data will be collected by observing the participant's body language and the way that they're responding to Pepper.
... ... @@ -27,18 +27,18 @@
27 27  == Participants ==
28 28  
29 29  20 students who play the role of having dementia. They will be divided into two groups. One group will be interacting with the intelligent (group 1) robot while the other will interact with the unintelligent robot (group 2).
30 -It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care centre.
24 +It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care center.
31 31  Before they start, they can choose how stubborn they want to be and how progressed their stage of dementia is.
32 32  
33 33  == Experimental design ==
34 34  
35 35  The first question collects quantitative data, where the number of people who were stopped will be counted.
36 -The other RQs are exploratory research.
30 +The other RQ's are exploratory research.
37 37  
38 38  1. Observe the participant's mood and see how the conversation goes. Observe the level of aggression (tone, volume, pace)
39 -1. Observe whether the mood is improved and the decision has been changed.
33 +1. Observe whether the mood is improved and decision has been changed.
40 40  1. Observe how natural the conversation is. (conversation makes sense)
41 -1. Participants fill out questionnaires.
35 +1. Participants fill out questionnaire.
42 42  
43 43  == Tasks ==
44 44  
... ... @@ -99,35 +99,13 @@
99 99  
100 100  
101 101  = Results =
102 -
103 103  **Results from Questionnaire:**
104 104  
105 -1. Condition 1 - intelligent Prototype:
106 -8 out of 11 Participants answered, that they don't know the music that has been played. If we told them afterward the title of the song, most participants do know the song. Why didn't they recognize it during the interaction?
107 -This can have two reasons: The part of the song we pick was too short to be recognized or not the most significant part of the song. For example, the beginning of "escape - the pina colada song" is not as well known as its chorus. Another reason could be, that the participant was distracted or confused by the robot and therefore couldn't carefully listen to the music.
108 -Only 4 out of 11 people agreed, that the music fits the situation. One of our claims, to use music that fits the situation or place, is therefore not reached and the music didn't have the intended effect. Even though we carefully choose the music and discussed a lot about our choice, it was hard to find music that different people connect with a certain place or activity. An approach to improve this could be using an individual playlist for each participant.
109 -
98 +Feedback from Participants:
110 110  
111 -**Feedback from Participants:**
100 +Observations:
112 112  
113 -**Observations:**
114 -Problems that occurred during the evaluation
115 115  
116 -1. lots of difficulties with speech recognition:
117 -1.1. even though the participant said one of the expected words, pepper understood it wrong and continued with a wrong path
118 -1.2. If the participant started to talk before pepper was listening (eyes turning blue), it misses a "yes" or "no" at the beginning of the sentence, which causes misunderstandings.
119 -1. problems with face detection
120 -2.1. due to bad light face was not recognized
121 -2.2. if the participant passes pepper from the side, the face was not recognized. Therefore, we told people to walk from the front towards pepper. In most cases that helped detect the face.
122 -2.3. face detection doesn't work with face masks. This could lead to huge problems in the usage of pepper in care homes.
123 -
124 -One of the most frequent and noticeable reactions from participants was **confusion**. This feeling was caused by two main factors:
125 -misunderstandings from speech recognition which leads to unsuitable answers from pepper, as well as the unsuitable environment and setting of our evaluation.
126 -The reasons for failure in speech recognition are listed above. An unsuitable answer can e.g. be an argument to stay inside, that doesn't fit the participant's reason to leave. Also, some people told in a long sentence that they don't like the provided activity and still want to leave. If the speech recognition fails in this case and pepper understood you would like to do the activity, it seems like it encourages you to leave, instead of doing the activity. This leads to the total opposite of our intention.
127 -Furthermore, we found out, that our prototype doesn't fit in the environment of the lab. We encourage the participant to do some activities, that they can't do in the lab environment (go to the living room, have a coffee or do a puzzle). If the robot tells asks you if you want to do the activity, most people don't know how to react and are insecure about how to answer. Participants "freeze" in front of the robot or just left the room.
128 -
129 -
130 -
131 131  = Discussion =
132 132  
133 133