Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44

From 60.1 to 61.1 From 90.1 to 91.1

From version

61.1

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 12:26

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

90.1

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 16:02

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
--Evaluation is an iterative process where the initial iterations focus on examining if the proposed idea is working as intended. Therefore, we want to first understand how realistic and convincing the provided dialogues and suggested activities are, and would they be able to prevent people from wandering. To examine this, we conduct a small pilot study with students, who role-play having dementia. We then observe their interaction with Pepper to examine the effectiveness of our dialog flow in preventing people from wandering.
++Evaluation is an iterative process where the initial iterations focus on examining if the proposed idea is working as intended. Therefore, we want to first understand how realistic and convincing the provided dialogues and suggested activities are, and would they be able to prevent people from wandering. To examine this, we conduct a small pilot study with students, who role-play having dementia. We then observe their interaction with Pepper to examine the effectiveness of our dialogue flow in preventing people from wandering.
--
  = Problem statement and research questions =
  **Goal**: How effective is music and dialogue in preventing people with dementia from wandering?
@@ -23,86 +23,44 @@
  = Method =
--A between-subject study with students who play the role of having dementia. Data will be collected with a questionnaire that participants fill out before and after interacting with Pepper. The questionnaire captures different aspects of the conversation along with their mood before and after the interaction with Pepper.
++We will conduct a between-subject study with students who play the role of having dementia. Data will be collected with a questionnaire that participants fill out before and after interacting with Pepper. The questionnaire captures different aspects of the conversation along with their mood before and after the interaction with Pepper.
  For our between-subject study, our independent variable is Pepper trying to distract the users by mentioning different activities along with the corresponding music. Through this, we want to measure the effectiveness of music and activities in preventing people from leaving the care home, which is thereby our dependent variable. So we developed 2 different prototype designs-
--Design X - It is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
--Design Y - It is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
++Design X - is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
++Design Y - is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
  == Participants ==
--17 students who play the role of having dementia. They will be divided into two groups. One group (11 participants) will be interacting with the intelligent (group 1) robot while the other group (6 students) will interact with the unintelligent robot (group 2).
--It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care center.
--Before they start, they can choose how stubborn they want to be and where they want to go.
++The ideal participants for our user study would have been people who have dementia. However, as the people in this section fall under vulnerable groups, testing with them would have been very difficult due to the current pandemic situation. Therefore we planned to conduct our experiments with students instead.
++Our experiment involves 17 students who play the role of having dementia. They will be divided into two groups. One group (11 participants) will be interacting with design X, while the other group (6 students) will interact with design Y.
  == Experimental design ==
--All questions collect quantitative data, using a 5 point Likert scale wherever applicable.
++**Before Experiment:**
++We will explain to the participants the goal of this experiment and what do they need to do to prevent ambiguity. Therefore, as our participants are students and only playing the role of having dementia, we will give them a level of stubbornness/ willpower with which they are trying to leave the care home.
++Participants will also be given a reason to leave, from the below list:
--1. Observe the participant's mood and see how the conversation goes. Observe the level of aggression (tone, volume, pace)
--1. Observe whether the mood is improved and the decision has been changed.
--1. Observe how natural the conversation is. (conversation makes sense)
--1. Participants fill out questionnaires.
++* going to the supermarket
++* going to the office
++* going for a walk
--== Tasks ==
++After this preparation, the participant fills a part of the questionnaire.
--Because our participants only play the role of having dementia, we will give them a level of stubbornness/ willpower with they are trying to leave. We try to detect this level with the robot.
--Participants from group 1 (using intelligent robot) will also be given one of the reasons to leave, listed below:
++**Experiment:**
++The participant begins interacting with Pepper who is standing near the exit door. The participant and robot have an interaction where the robot is trying to convince him/her to stay inside.
--1. going to the supermarket
--1. going to the office
--1. going for a walk
++**After Experiment:**
++After the participant finishes interacting with Pepper, he/she will be asked to fill out the remaining questionnaire. Almost all the questions in the questionnaire collect quantitative data, using a 5 point Likert scale. The questionnaire also used images from Self Assessment Manikin (SAM) so that user can self attest to their mood before and after their interaction with Pepper.
--After this preparation, the participant is told to (try to) leave the building. The participant and robot have an interaction where the robot is trying to convince the participant to stay inside.
--
--
--== Measures ==
--
--We will be measuring this physically and emotionally.
--Physically: whether the participant was stopped from leaving the building or not.
--Emotionally: evaluate their responses to the robot and observe their mood before and after the interaction.
--
--
--== Procedure ==
--
--{{html}}
--<!-- Your HTML code here -->
--<table width='100%'>
--<tr>
--<th width='50%'>Group 1</th>
--<th width='50%'>Group 2</th>
--</tr>
--<tr>
--<td>intelligent robot</td>
--<td>unintelligent robot</td>
--</tr>
--<tr>
--<td>
--1. Starts with a short briefing on what we expect from the participant<br>
--2. Let them fill out the informed consent form<br>
--3. Tell them their level of stubbornness and reason to leave<br>
--4. Fill out question about current mood (in their role)<br>
--4. Let the user interact with the robot<br>
--5. While user is interacting, we will be observing the conversation with the robot<br>
--6. Let user fill out the questionnaire about their experience after the interaction
--</td>
--<td>
--1. Starts with a short briefing on what we expect from the participant<br>
--2. Let them fill out the informed consent form<br>
--4. Fill out question about current mood (in their role)<br>
--5. Let the user interact with the robot<br>
--6. Let user fill out the questionnaire about their experience after the interaction<br>
--</td>
--</tr>
--</table>
--
--{{/html}}
--
  == Material ==
--Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
++The items required for this evaluation are the following:
++* Pepper
++* Door
++* Caretaker in a nearby room in case of emergency
++
  = Results =
  {{html}}
@@ -170,7 +170,8 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ1.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We used a Likert scale for this question, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. Participants who interacted with design Y tend to agree less to stay inside compared to the people who interacted with design X.
++
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -185,7 +185,9 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We notice a positive change in valence with the full flow i.e design X (although negligible). This can be because of the music. The valence does not decrease for the baseline which might be due to the novelty effect of seeing Pepper for the first time. The change in arousal in both scenarios is nearly negligible. This might be due to the fact that the interaction with Pepper was very short.
++Additionally, in the case of the full flow i.e design X, these values might have not changed significantly as per the expectation (valence higher, arousal lower) because the music was not personalized for participants.
++
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -200,7 +200,9 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We notice a very minute difference between the full flow i.e design X, and control condition, design Y. There might be many reasons behind this. The speech recognition module in Pepper was not very efficient to understand different accents and thereby misunderstood words in some cases. <br>
++The null hypothesis is perceived message understanding for both the conditions is equal. Given the p value, the null hypothesis can not be rejected. High variance in data and also restrictive sample size could be the reasons behind the insignificant result.
++
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We found that participants who knew the songs, enjoyed the music and thought it fit the situation more than the ones who did not know the songs.
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++As per these results, we can say that if participants have a predilection toward the suggested activity, there is a higher chance of them staying in. Therefore there is a direct correlation between people staying in and their interest in the activity. After personalization, we expect the score to be further increased.
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -245,7 +245,11 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We find that the values for co-presence for both conditions are very similar. This may be attributed to the novelty effect and also to the fact that the face recognition module remains unchanged.
++The values for attention allocation are similar, but the controlled flow (design Y) has a higher value. We suspect that the potential reason might be, that people start to lose focus with the elongated conversations.
++
++Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses.
++
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -260,7 +260,7 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RelScores.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--Comment on the graph
++We achieved a high Cronbatch alpha score (>60%) for almost all the sections of our analysis. Thereby providing reliability to our evaluation.
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>