Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 62.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 12:27
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 56.3 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 11:44
Change comment: Added comment

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
1 -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.
1 +Evaluation is an iterative process where the initial iterations focus on examining if the proposed idea is working as intended. Therefore, we wanted 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 conducted a small pilot study with students, who role-played having dementia. We then observed their interaction with Pepper to examine the effectiveness of our dialog flow in preventing people from wandering.
2 2  
3 3  
4 4  = Problem statement and research questions =
... ... @@ -23,17 +23,13 @@
23 23  
24 24  = Method =
25 25  
26 -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.
26 +A between-subject study with students who play the role of having dementia. Data will be collected with a questionnaire (before and after participation), observing the participant's body language and the way that they're responding to Pepper.
27 27  
28 -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-
29 -
30 -Design X - It is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
31 -Design Y - It is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
32 -
33 33  == Participants ==
34 34  
35 -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 (group 1) robot while the other group (6 students) will interact with the design Y (group 2).
30 +18 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 (7 students) will interact with the unintelligent robot (group 2).
36 36  It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care center.
32 +Before they start, they can choose how stubborn they want to be and where they want to go.
37 37  
38 38  == Experimental design ==
39 39  
... ... @@ -102,8 +102,8 @@
102 102  
103 103  Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
104 104  
105 -= Results =
106 106  
102 += Results =
107 107  {{html}}
108 108  <!--=== Comparison between intelligent (cond. 1) and less intelligent (cond. 2) prototype ===
109 109  
... ... @@ -161,7 +161,6 @@
161 161  {{/html}}
162 162  
163 163  === RQ1: Are people convinced not to go out unsupervised? ===
164 -
165 165  {{html}}
166 166  <table style="width: 100%">
167 167  <tr>
... ... @@ -176,7 +176,6 @@
176 176  {{/html}}
177 177  
178 178  === RQ2: How does the interaction change the participant's mood? ===
179 -
180 180  {{html}}
181 181  <table style="width: 100%">
182 182  <tr>
... ... @@ -191,7 +191,6 @@
191 191  {{/html}}
192 192  
193 193  === RQ3: Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention? ===
194 -
195 195  {{html}}
196 196  <table style="width: 100%">
197 197  <tr>
... ... @@ -206,7 +206,6 @@
206 206  {{/html}}
207 207  
208 208  === RQ4: How do the participants react to the music? ===
209 -
210 210  {{html}}
211 211  <table style="width: 100%">
212 212  <tr>
... ... @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@
221 221  {{/html}}
222 222  
223 223  === RQ5: Does the activity that the robot suggests prevent people from wandering/ leaving? ===
224 -
225 225  {{html}}
226 226  <table style="width: 100%">
227 227  <tr>
... ... @@ -236,7 +236,6 @@
236 236  {{/html}}
237 237  
238 238  === RQ6: Can pepper identify and catch the attention of the PwD? ===
239 -
240 240  {{html}}
241 241  <table style="width: 100%">
242 242  <tr>
... ... @@ -251,7 +251,6 @@
251 251  {{/html}}
252 252  
253 253  === Reliabity Scores ===
254 -
255 255  {{html}}
256 256  <table style="width: 100%">
257 257  <tr>
... ... @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@
265 265  </table>
266 266  {{/html}}
267 267  
268 -= Limitation =
257 += Limitation=
269 269  
270 270  * **Lab Environment**: The lab environment is different from a care home, the participants found it difficult to process the suggestions made by Pepper. For example, if Pepper asked someone to visit the living room, it created confusion among the participants regarding their next action.
271 271  
... ... @@ -276,7 +276,6 @@
276 276  * **Face Detection**: The face recognition module within Pepper is also rudimentary in nature. It can not detect half faces are when participants approach from the side. Adding to the problem, the lighting condition in the lab was not sufficient for the reliable functioning of the face recognition module. Hence Pepper failed to notice the participant in some cases and did not start the dialogue flow.
277 277  
278 278  = Conclusions =
279 -
280 280  * People who liked the activity tend to stay in
281 281  * People who knew the music found it more fitting
282 282  * People are more convinced to stay in with the intelligent prototype
... ... @@ -285,8 +285,8 @@
285 285  * Experiment with personalization
286 286  
287 287  = Future Work =
288 -
289 289  * **Personalisation**: Personalize music, and activity preferences according to the person interacting with Pepper.
290 290  * **Robot Collaboration**: Collaborate with other robots such as Miro to assist a person with dementia while going for a walk instead of the caretaker.
291 291  * **Recognise Person**: For a personalised experience, it is essential that Pepper is able to identify each person based on an internal database.
292 292  * **Fine Tune Speech Recognition**: Improvements are necessary for the speech recognition module before the actual deployment of the project in a care home. Additionally, support for multiple languages can be considered to engage with non-English speaking people.
280 +
Icon XWiki.XWikiComments[2]
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.Vishruty
Comment
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Check if RQ and claims align with each other(CL numbers) once claims are reverted.
Date
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2022-04-02 11:45:38.960