Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
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 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.
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?
...	...	@@ -23,25 +23,24 @@
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.
	25	+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.
27	27
28	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	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.
	29	+Design X - is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
	30	+Design Y - is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
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 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.
	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:**
	40	+We will explain to the participants the goal of this experiment and what 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.
	41	+Participants will also be given a reason to leave from the below list:
41	41
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		-Participants will also be given a reason to leave, from the below list:
44		-
45	45	* going to the supermarket
46	46	* going to the office
47	47	* going for a walk
...	...	@@ -52,12 +52,16 @@
52	52	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.
53	53
54	54	**After Experiment:**
55		-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.
	53	+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 users could self attest to their mood before and after their interaction with Pepper.
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. High variance in data and also restrictive sample size could be the reasons behind the insignificant result.
	165	+
159	159	</td>
160	160	</tr>
161	161	</table>
...	...	@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@
170	170	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
171	171	</td>
172	172	<td>
173		-Comment on the graph
	180	+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.
174	174	</td>
175	175	</tr>
176	176	</table>
...	...	@@ -185,7 +185,7 @@
185	185	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
186	186	</td>
187	187	<td>
188		-Comment on the graph
	195	+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.
189	189	</td>
190	190	</tr>
191	191	</table>
...	...	@@ -200,7 +200,11 @@
200	200	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
201	201	</td>
202	202	<td>
203		-Comment on the graph
	210	+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.
	211	+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.
	212	+
	213	+Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses.
	214	+
204	204	</td>
205	205	</tr>
206	206	</table>
...	...	@@ -215,7 +215,7 @@
215	215	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RelScores.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
216	216	</td>
217	217	<td>
218		-Comment on the graph
	229	+We achieved a high Cronbatch alpha score (>60%) for almost all the sections of our analysis. Thereby providing reliability to our evaluation.
219	219	</td>
220	220	</tr>
221	221	</table>