Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
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		-There was 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. This 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.
	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	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	148
149	149	</td>
...	...	@@ -160,7 +160,9 @@
160	160	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ3.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
161	161	</td>
162	162	<td>
163		-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	+
164	164	</td>
165	165	</tr>
166	166	</table>
...	...	@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@
175	175	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
176	176	</td>
177	177	<td>
178		-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.
179	179	</td>
180	180	</tr>
181	181	</table>
...	...	@@ -190,7 +190,7 @@
190	190	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
191	191	</td>
192	192	<td>
193		-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.
194	194	</td>
195	195	</tr>
196	196	</table>
...	...	@@ -205,7 +205,11 @@
205	205	<img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
206	206	</td>
207	207	<td>
208		-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	+
209	209	</td>
210	210	</tr>
211	211	</table>