Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Ilinca Rentea on 2023/04/11 12:25
From version 10.2
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:48
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 10.1
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:47
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -109,9 +109,9 @@
109 109  
110 110  = 4. Discussion =
111 111  
112 -The results do not show a conclusive effect towards the added value of having a robot performing the activity. This is can be attributed to different possible causes.
112 +The results do not show a conclusive effect in general towards the added value of having a robot performing the activity. This is can be attributed to different possible causes.
113 113  
114 -First of all, the questions that were asked were more focused on the experience of the activity rather than the specific added value a robot might giveto the activity. Painting can be generally viewed as an enjoyable and engaging activity, so when focusing on the enjoyment part, it could be understood that the robot does not make a significant impact there. However, the robot might give significant improvement in terms of support, motivation and structure during the activity. Especially if the test was conducted on actual PwDs. For future work it would be interesting to explore during the design process on which parts of the activity the robot might be able to do more than paper instructions and to investigate how these contributions might be measured.
114 +First of all, the questions that were asked were more focused on the experience of the activity rather than the specific added value a robot might give when doing such an activity. It is understandable that painting can be generally viewed as an enjoyable and engaging activity, so when focusing on the enjoyment, it could be understood that the robot does not make a significant impact there. However, the robot might give significant improvement in terms of support, motivation and structure during the activity. Especially if the test was conducted on actual PwDs. For future work it would be interesting to explore during the design process on which parts of the activity the robot might be able to do more than paper instructions and to investigate how these contributions might be measured.
115 115  
116 116  Moreover, as we alluded to earlier, the activity might be experienced highly different for PwDs than 20 year old TU Delft students. Therefore, it is hard to draw any conclusions on the use of the robot by testing it on people who do not need much support from it.
117 117