Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 84.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:16
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 80.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
161 161  </td>
162 162  <td>
163 163  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.
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.
165 165  
166 166  </td>
167 167  </tr>
... ... @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
177 177  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
178 178  </td>
179 179  <td>
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. 
180 +Comment on the graph
181 181  </td>
182 182  </tr>
183 183  </table>
... ... @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@
192 192  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ5.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
193 193  </td>
194 194  <td>
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.
195 +Comment on the graph
196 196  </td>
197 197  </tr>
198 198  </table>
... ... @@ -207,11 +207,7 @@
207 207  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
208 208  </td>
209 209  <td>
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 -
210 +Comment on the graph
215 215  </td>
216 216  </tr>
217 217  </table>