Changes for page Test

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

From 56.4 to 56.3 From 63.2 to 63.1

From version

63.1

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 12:55

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

56.4

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 11:45

Change comment: Added comment

Raw
Rendered

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
--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 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.
  = Problem statement and research questions =
@@ -23,37 +23,23 @@
  = 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.
++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.
--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.
--
  == 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 design X (group 1) robot while the other group (6 students) will interact with the design Y (group 2).
++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).
  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.
  == Experimental design ==
--Before Experiment:
++All questions collect quantitative data, using a 5 point Likert scale wherever applicable.
--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
--
--After this preparation, the participant fills a part of the questionnaire.
--
--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.
--
--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.
--
  == Tasks ==
  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.
@@ -112,8 +112,8 @@
  Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
--= Results =
++= Results =
  {{html}}
  <!--=== Comparison between intelligent (cond. 1) and less intelligent (cond. 2) prototype ===
@@ -171,7 +171,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ1: Are people convinced not to go out unsupervised? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -186,7 +186,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ2: How does the interaction change the participant's mood? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -201,7 +201,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ3: Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -216,7 +216,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ4: How do the participants react to the music? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -231,7 +231,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ5: Does the activity that the robot suggests prevent people from wandering/ leaving? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -246,7 +246,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === RQ6: Can pepper identify and catch the attention of the PwD? ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -261,7 +261,6 @@
  {{/html}}
  === Reliabity Scores ===
--
  {{html}}
  <table style="width: 100%">
  <tr>
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@
  </table>
  {{/html}}
--= Limitation =
++= Limitation=
  * **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.
@@ -286,7 +286,6 @@
  * **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.
  = Conclusions =
--
  * People who liked the activity tend to stay in
  * People who knew the music found it more fitting
  * People are more convinced to stay in with the intelligent prototype
@@ -295,8 +295,8 @@
  * Experiment with personalization
  = Future Work =
--
  * **Personalisation**: Personalize music, and activity preferences according to the person interacting with Pepper.
  * **Robot Collaboration**: Collaborate with other robots such as Miro to assist a person with dementia while going for a walk instead of the caretaker.
  * **Recognise Person**: For a personalised experience, it is essential that Pepper is able to identify each person based on an internal database.
  * **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.
++