Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44

From 86.1 to 87.1 From 95.1 to 96.1

From version

87.1

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 15:58

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version

95.1

edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 16:11

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Raw
Rendered

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

@@ -26,19 +26,19 @@
  For our between-subject study, our independent variable is Pepper trying to distract the users by mentioning different activities along with the corresponding music. Through this, we want to measure the effectiveness of music and activities in preventing people from leaving the care home, which is thereby our dependent variable. So we developed 2 different prototype designs-
--Design X - It is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
--Design Y - It is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
++Design X - is the full interaction flow where Pepper suggests activities and uses music to distract people from leaving.
++Design Y - is the control condition where pepper simply tries to stop people from leaving by physically keeping its hand on the door.
  == Participants ==
--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.
--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.
++The ideal participants for our user study would have been people who have dementia. However, 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.
++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.
  == Experimental design ==
  **Before Experiment:**
--We will explain to the participants the goal of this experiment and what do they need to do to prevent ambiguity. Therefore, as our participants are students and only playing the role of having dementia, we will give them a level of stubbornness/ willpower with which they are trying to leave the care home.
--Participants will also be given a reason to leave, from the below list:
++We will explain to the participants the goal of this experiment and what they need to do to prevent ambiguity. Therefore, as our participants are students and only playing the role of having dementia, we will give them a level of stubbornness/ willpower with which they are trying to leave the care home.
++Participants will also be given a reason to leave from the below list:
  * going to the supermarket
  * going to the office
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
  The participant begins interacting with Pepper who is standing near the exit door. The participant and robot have an interaction where the robot is trying to convince him/her to stay inside.
  **After Experiment:**
--After the participant finishes interacting with Pepper, he/she will be asked to fill out the remaining questionnaire. Almost all the questions in the questionnaire collect quantitative data, using a 5 point Likert scale. The questionnaire also used images from Self Assessment Manikin (SAM) so that user can self attest to their mood before and after their interaction with Pepper.
++After the participant finishes interacting with Pepper, he/she will be asked to fill out the remaining questionnaire. Almost all the questions in the questionnaire collect quantitative data, using a 5 point Likert scale. The questionnaire also used images from Self Assessment Manikin (SAM) so that users could self attest to their mood before and after their interaction with Pepper.
  == Material ==
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ1.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--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.
++We used a Likert scale for this question, 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. Participants who interacted with design X tend to agree to stay inside more than those who interacted with design Y.
  </td>
  </tr>
@@ -143,8 +143,8 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ2.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--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.
--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.
++We notice a positive change in valence with the full flow i.e design X (although negligible). This could 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. <br>
++Additionally, in the case of the full flow i.e design X, these values might not have changed significantly as per the expectation (valence higher, arousal lower) because the music was not personalized for participants.
  </td>
  </tr>
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
  </td>
  <td>
  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>
--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.
++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 restrictive sample size could be the reasons behind the insignificant result.
  </td>
  </tr>
@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ4.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--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.
++We found that participants who knew the songs, enjoyed the music and thought it fit the situation more, than those who did not know the songs.
  </td>
  </tr>
  </table>
@@ -207,10 +207,10 @@
  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RQ6.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
  </td>
  <td>
--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.
--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.
++We find that the values for co-presence for both conditions are very similar. This may be attributed to the novelty effect and the fact that the face recognition module remains unchanged.
++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 long conversations.
--Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses.
++Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses.
  </td>
  </tr>