Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -102,10 +102,11 @@
102	102
103	103	= Results =
104	104
105		-**Results from Questionnaire:**
	105	+==== Condition 1 - intelligent Prototype: ====
106	106
107		-1. Condition 1 - intelligent Prototype:
108		-{{html}}<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Test/WebHome/Music_reco.svg" width="500" height="270" /> <br>{{/html}}
	107	+{{html}}
	108	+<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Test/WebHome/Music_reco.svg" width="500" height="270" /> <br>
	109	+{{/html}}
109	109
110	110	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?
111	111	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.
...	...	@@ -117,10 +117,13 @@
117	117	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.
118	118
119	119
120		-1. Condition 2 - less intelligent prototype:
121	121
122		-**Comparison between intelligent (cond. 1) and less intelligent (cond. 2) prototype**
	122	+==== Condition 2 - less intelligent prototype: ====
123	123
	124	+Participants assigned to condition 2 weren't convinced to leave. We saw, that most of them tried to continue talking to pepper when it raises its arm to block the door, even though it didn't listen. They were surprised by peppers reaction and asked for a reason why they are not allowed to leave. In order to have a natural conversation flow, the robot should provide an explanation for each scenario that tells why the person is not allowed to leave. This confirms that our approach, to give reason to stay inside, might be helpful to convince PwD to stay inside.
	125	+
	126	+=== Comparison between intelligent (cond. 1) and less intelligent (cond. 2) prototype ===
	127	+
124	124	{{html}}
125	125	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Test/WebHome/Stay_inside.svg" width="500" height="270" />
126	126	{{/html}}
...	...	@@ -128,11 +128,8 @@
128	128	Non of the participants who interacted with the less intelligent robot was prevented from leaving. Still, 3 people assigned to condition 1 weren't convinced to stay inside. A failure rate of 27,3 % is too high for this application since people could be in danger if the system fails.
129	129
130	130
	135	+==== Problems that occurred during the evaluation ====
131	131
132		-
133		-**Observations:**
134		-Problems that occurred during the evaluation
135		-
136	136	1. lots of difficulties with speech recognition:
137	137	1.1. even though the participant said one of the expected words, pepper understood it wrong and continued with a wrong path
138	138	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.
...	...	@@ -146,9 +146,8 @@
146	146	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.
147	147	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.
148	148
149		-Condition 2:
150		-Participants assigned to condition 2 weren't convinced to leave. We saw, that most of them tried to continue talking to pepper when it raises its arm to block the door, even though it didn't listen. They were surprised by peppers reaction and asked for a reason why they are not allowed to leave. In order to have a natural conversation flow, the robot should provide an explanation for each scenario that tells why the person is not allowed to leave. This confirms that our approach, to give reason to stay inside, might be helpful to convince PwD to stay inside.
151	151
	151	+
152	152	= Discussion =
153	153
154	154