Changes for page Test
Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version
81.1


edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:03
on 2022/04/02 15:03
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version
74.2


edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 14:33
on 2022/04/02 14:33
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -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 - 146 +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. <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 - 161 +Comment on the graph 166 166 </td> 167 167 </tr> 168 168 </table>