Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Ilinca Rentea on 2023/04/11 12:25
From version 12.1
edited by Ilinca Rentea
on 2023/04/11 12:12
Change comment: Uploaded new attachment "11_HRX-checklist for human research.pdf", version 1.1
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
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.IlincaRentea
1 +XWiki.MarijnRoelvink
Content
... ... @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
69 69  
70 70  = 3. Results =
71 71  
72 -We grouped the results of the PACE questionnaires into two partitions:  One set of questions relating more to RQ1 and one set of questions relating more to RQ2. In the following sections we will outline the results for both research questions.
72 +We grouped the results of the PACE questionnaires into two partitions:  One set of questions relating more to RQ1 and one set of questions relating more to RQ2.
73 73  
74 74  
75 75  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
... ... @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
77 77  
78 78  [[image:RQ1.png||height="297" width="812"]]
79 79  
80 -As shown in the figure above, the results were not exactly significant. The only question that obtained a reasonable p-score (P=0.022) was Q14. This implies that the robot did provide for a more immersive activity where the urge to do something else was diminished. Due to the fact that the robot gives more active guidance than paper instructions, it could be hypothesized that the participants were more actively feeling part of the activity.
80 +As one can see, the results were not exactly significant. The only question that obtained a reasonable p-score (P=0.022) was Q14. This implies that the robot did provide for a more immersive activity where the urge to do something else was diminished. Due to the fact that the robot gives more active guidance than paper instructions, it could be hypothesized that the participants were more actively feeling part of the activity.
81 81  
82 82  
83 83  **RQ2: How does the assistance provided by a social robot influence the level of agitation in art-related tasks for people with dementia?**
... ... @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
85 85  [[image:1681152536590-277.png||height="327" width="783"]]
86 86  
87 87  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
88 -For this research question the results also proved not to be conclusive. The only result that could be viewed as remotely significant is the result for question 7 (P=0.073). This could be caused either by the positive encouragement given by the robot, and/or the added functionality that the robot could search for pictures to draw.
88 +For this research question the results also proved not to be conclusive. The only result that could be viewed as remotely significant is the result for question 7 (P=0.073). This could be caused either by the positive encouragement given by the robot, and/or the added functionality of searching for pictures to draw.
89 89  
90 90  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
91 91  **Aggregated score**
... ... @@ -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  
11_HRX-checklist for human research.pdf
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.IlincaRentea
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -370.4 KB
Content