Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 75.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 14:33
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 84.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:16
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -143,7 +143,9 @@
143 143  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
144 144  </td>
145 145  <td>
146 -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 +
147 147  </td>
148 148  </tr>
149 149  </table>
... ... @@ -158,7 +158,9 @@
158 158  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
159 159  </td>
160 160  <td>
161 -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 +
162 162  </td>
163 163  </tr>
164 164  </table>
... ... @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@
173 173  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
174 174  </td>
175 175  <td>
176 -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. 
177 177  </td>
178 178  </tr>
179 179  </table>
... ... @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@
188 188  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
189 189  </td>
190 190  <td>
191 -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.
192 192  </td>
193 193  </tr>
194 194  </table>
... ... @@ -203,7 +203,11 @@
203 203  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
204 204  </td>
205 205  <td>
206 -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 +
207 207  </td>
208 208  </tr>
209 209  </table>