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
...	...	@@ -22,23 +22,23 @@
22	22
23	23	= Method =
24	24
25		-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.
26	26
27	27	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-
28	28
29		-Design X - It is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
30		-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.
31	31
32	32	== Participants ==
33	33
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.
	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.
36	36
37	37	== Experimental design ==
38	38
39	39	**Before Experiment:**
40		-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.
41		-Participants will also be given a reason to leave, from the below list:
	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:
42	42
43	43	* going to the supermarket
44	44	* going to the office
...	...	@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
50	50	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.
51	51
52	52	**After Experiment:**
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 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.
54	54
55	55	== Material ==
56	56
...	...	@@ -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>
...	...	@@ -218,7 +218,7 @@
218	218	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RelScores.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
219	219	</td>
220	220	<td>
221		-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.
222	222	</td>
223	223	</tr>
224	224	</table>