Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
1	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.
2	2
3		-
4	4	= Problem statement and research questions =
5	5
6	6	**Goal**: How effective is music and dialogue in preventing people with dementia from wandering?
...	...	@@ -32,13 +32,12 @@
32	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).
36		-It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care center.
	34	+The ideal participants for our user study would have been people suffering from dementia. 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.
	35	+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.
37	37
38	38	== Experimental design ==
39	39
40	40	**Before Experiment:**
41		-
42	42	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.
43	43	Participants will also be given a reason to leave, from the below list:
44	44
...	...	@@ -56,8 +56,12 @@
56	56
57	57	== Material ==
58	58
59		-Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
	57	+The items required for this evaluation are the following:
60	60
	59	+* Pepper
	60	+* Door
	61	+* Caretaker in a nearby room in case of emergency
	62	+
61	61	= Results =
62	62
63	63	{{html}}
...	...	@@ -125,7 +125,8 @@
125	125	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ1.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
126	126	</td>
127	127	<td>
128		-Comment on the graph
	130	+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.
	131	+
129	129	</td>
130	130	</tr>
131	131	</table>
...	...	@@ -140,7 +140,9 @@
140	140	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
141	141	</td>
142	142	<td>
143		-Comment on the graph
	146	+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.
	147	+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.
	148	+
144	144	</td>
145	145	</tr>
146	146	</table>
...	...	@@ -155,7 +155,9 @@
155	155	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
156	156	</td>
157	157	<td>
158		-Comment on the graph
	163	+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>
	164	+The null hypothesis is perceived message understanding for both the conditions is equal. Given the p value, the null hypothesis can not be rejected. We see a high variance in data and also the sample size is very restrictive which could be the reason behind the insignificant result.
	165	+
159	159	</td>
160	160	</tr>
161	161	</table>