Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

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 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	3	= Problem statement and research questions =
4	4
...	...	@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
6	6
7	7	**Research Questions (RQ):**
8	8
	9	+
9	9	1. What percentage of people are prevented from going out unsupervised? (Quantitative) (CL01, CL05)
10	10	1. How does the interaction change the participant's mood? (CL02)
11	11	1. Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention? (CL03)
...	...	@@ -21,17 +21,17 @@
21	21
22	22	= Method =
23	23
24		-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.
25	25
26	26	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-
27	27
28		-Design X - It is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
29		-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.
30	30
31	31	== Participants ==
32	32
33		-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).
34		-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.
35	35
36	36	== Experimental design ==
37	37
...	...	@@ -53,8 +53,12 @@
53	53
54	54	== Material ==
55	55
56		-Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
	57	+The items required for this evaluation are the following:
57	57
	59	+* Pepper
	60	+* Door
	61	+* Caretaker in a nearby room in case of emergency
	62	+
58	58	= Results =
59	59
60	60	{{html}}
...	...	@@ -122,7 +122,8 @@
122	122	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ1.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
123	123	</td>
124	124	<td>
125		-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	+
126	126	</td>
127	127	</tr>
128	128	</table>
...	...	@@ -137,7 +137,9 @@
137	137	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
138	138	</td>
139	139	<td>
140		-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	+
141	141	</td>
142	142	</tr>
143	143	</table>
...	...	@@ -152,7 +152,9 @@
152	152	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
153	153	</td>
154	154	<td>
155		-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	+
156	156	</td>
157	157	</tr>
158	158	</table>
...	...	@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@
167	167	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
168	168	</td>
169	169	<td>
170		-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.
171	171	</td>
172	172	</tr>
173	173	</table>
...	...	@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@
182	182	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
183	183	</td>
184	184	<td>
185		-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.
186	186	</td>
187	187	</tr>
188	188	</table>
...	...	@@ -197,7 +197,11 @@
197	197	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
198	198	</td>
199	199	<td>
200		-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	+
201	201	</td>
202	202	</tr>
203	203	</table>
...	...	@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@
212	212	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RelScores.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
213	213	</td>
214	214	<td>
215		-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.
216	216	</td>
217	217	</tr>
218	218	</table>