Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 79.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:00
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 74.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 13:20
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -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 -
130 +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 -
145 +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 -
160 +Comment on the graph
166 166  </td>
167 167  </tr>
168 168  </table>