Skip to Content

Changes for page Test

Last modified by Clara Stiller on 2022/04/05 13:44
From version Icon 94.1 Icon
edited by Vishruty Mittal
on 2022/04/02 16:07
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 98.1 Icon
edited by Cesar van der Poel
on 2022/04/03 18:57
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.Vishruty
1 +XWiki.Cesarvanderpoe
Content
... ... @@ -8,11 +8,11 @@
8 8  
9 9  
10 10  1. What percentage of people are prevented from going out unsupervised? (Quantitative) (CL01, CL05)
11 -1. How does the interaction change the participant's mood? (CL02)
11 +1. How does the interaction change the participant's mood? (CL02, CL13)
12 12  1. Can the robot respond appropriately to the participant's intention? (CL03)
13 13  1. How do the participants react to the music? (CL04)
14 14  1. Does the activity that the robot suggests prevent people from wandering/ leaving? (CL06)
15 -1. Can pepper identify and catch the attention of the PwD?
15 +1. Can pepper identify and catch the attention of the PwD? (CL07)
16 16  
17 17  //Future research questions//
18 18  
... ... @@ -143,7 +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 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.
146 +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>
147 147  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.
148 148  
149 149  </td>
... ... @@ -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. High variance in data and restrictive sample size could be the reasons 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 +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. 
181 181  </td>
182 182  </tr>
183 183  </table>
... ... @@ -207,10 +207,10 @@
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. 
210 +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.
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 long conversations. <br>
212 212  
213 -Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses. 
213 +Besides the co-presence, all the observations are not statistically significant because of the high variance in the limited responses.
214 214  
215 215  </td>
216 216  </tr>
... ... @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
226 226  <img src="/xwiki/wiki/sce2022group05/download/Foundation/Operational%20Demands/Personas/WebHome/RelScores.jpg?height=250&rev=1.1" />
227 227  </td>
228 228  <td>
229 -We achieved a high Cronbatch alpha score (>60%) for almost all the sections of our analysis. Thereby providing reliability to our evaluation.
229 +We achieved a high Cronbatch alpha score (>60%) for almost all the sections of our analysis. This thereby provides reliability to our evaluation.
230 230  </td>
231 231  </tr>
232 232  </table>