Changes for page Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
1	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.
2	2
	3	+
3	3	= Problem statement and research questions =
4	4
5	5	**Goal**: How effective is music and dialogue in preventing people with dementia from wandering?
...	...	@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@
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.
	35	+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).
	36	+It is assumed that all participants are living at the same care center.
36	36
37	37	== Experimental design ==
38	38
...	...	@@ -54,12 +54,8 @@
54	54
55	55	== Material ==
56	56
57		-The items required for this evaluation are the following:
	58	+Pepper, laptop, door, and music.
58	58
59		-* Pepper
60		-* Door
61		-* Caretaker in a nearby room in case of emergency
62		-
63	63	= Results =
64	64
65	65	{{html}}
...	...	@@ -127,8 +127,7 @@
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		-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		-
	127	+Comment on the graph
132	132	</td>
133	133	</tr>
134	134	</table>
...	...	@@ -143,9 +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		-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		-
	142	+Comment on the graph
149	149	</td>
150	150	</tr>
151	151	</table>
...	...	@@ -160,9 +160,7 @@
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		-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		-
	157	+Comment on the graph
166	166	</td>
167	167	</tr>
168	168	</table>