Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 73.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 13:12
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 79.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:00
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -31,8 +31,8 @@
31 31  
32 32  == Participants ==
33 33  
34 -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).
35 -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.
36 36  
37 37  == Experimental design ==
38 38  
... ... @@ -127,7 +127,8 @@
127 127  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ1.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
128 128  </td>
129 129  <td>
130 -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 +
131 131  </td>
132 132  </tr>
133 133  </table>
... ... @@ -142,7 +142,9 @@
142 142  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
143 143  </td>
144 144  <td>
145 -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 +
146 146  </td>
147 147  </tr>
148 148  </table>
... ... @@ -157,7 +157,9 @@
157 157  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
158 158  </td>
159 159  <td>
160 -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.
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 +
161 161  </td>
162 162  </tr>
163 163  </table>