Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -72,16 +72,13 @@
72	72	(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
73	73	**RQ1: How does the assistance provided by a social robot influence engagement in art-related tasks for people with dementia?**
74	74
75		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
76	76
77	77	○ Independent variable: with/without robot
78	78	○ Dependent variable: level of engagement
79	79
80		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
81	81
82	82	**RQ2: How does the assistance provided by a social robot influence the level of agitation in art-related tasks for people with dementia?**
83	83
84		-(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
85	85
86	86	○ Independent variable: with/without robot
87	87	○ Dependent variable: level of agitation
...	...	@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
158	158
159	159	We followed a within-study approach with a control group and a test group. The control group was first instructed to perform the painting activity without Pepper and then move on to the same activity but this time with Pepper. The test group was told to do vice-versa to minimise any transfer effect.
160	160
161		-We used questions Q2, Q3, Q5, Q13, Q14 to answer our research question 1 and questions Q1, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12 to answer our research question 2. Based on the results we saw in the above sections, unfortunately, the results we obtained to answer our research questions related to Engagement and Agitation are not significant. These questions were picked from the PACES questionnaire (link). The aggregated score of the results based on the PACES questionnaire was 0.228 which is not significant enough for our threshold of 0.05. Although one interesting thing to note is that the raw scores for the questions were always higher for questions that were positively associated with the Pepper robot. Although this could also have been because the participants were our colleagues and they could have been biased in their responses.
	158	+We used questions Q2, Q3, Q5, Q13, Q14 to answer our research question 1 and questions Q1, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, Q12 to answer our research question 2. Based on the results we saw in the above sections, unfortunately, the results we obtained to answer our research questions related to Engagement and Agitation are not significant. These questions were picked from the [[PACES questionnaire>>doc:Main.b\. Human Factors.Measuring Instruments.EV01\: Phsyical Activity Enjoyment Scale.WebHome]]. The aggregated score of the results based on the PACES questionnaire was 0.228 which is not significant enough for our threshold of 0.05. Although one interesting thing to note is that the raw scores for the questions were always higher for questions that were positively associated with the Pepper robot. Although this could also have been because the participants were our colleagues and they could have been biased in their responses.
162	162
163	163	The participants were also required to answer two more questions AQ1 and AQ2 after the activity which was used to investigate whether the participants preferred the activity with a robot or without it. The mean responses for AQ1 were in favour of painting with the robot but for AQ2 no definite conclusion could be made. This could be because of the confounding factor related to the painting activity itself; participants who liked to paint preferred the activity either way with or without the robot.
164	164
...	...	@@ -166,7 +166,10 @@
166	166
167	167	= 5. Conclusions =
168	168
	166	+Our project sought to offer support to individuals suffering from dementia in their passion for painting, with the objective of enhancing their emotional well-being. While human caregivers could provide such assistance, utilizing a humanoid robot such as Pepper for painting activities provides several advantages. Pepper has the potential to enhance and sustain the interest of individuals with dementia in painting by encouraging them to paint and providing assistance during the activity. As a result, the quality of life of these individuals could be improved, which may be augmented by playing calming music during the painting process. In addition, this activity could bring together the individuals with their family members, as personalized painting recommendations could be provided, and photos of completed paintings could be shared. Rather than completing the painting activity for the individuals, Pepper would guide them through the process, promoting a greater sense of independence and self-sufficiency.
169	169
	168	+We did a study to evaluate the effectiveness of having a robot like Pepper assisting the PwD with painting instead of the PwD doing the activity alone. Our results based on the responses obtained from our custom PACES questionnaire were statistically insignificant and hence we could not conclusively answer our research questions related to engagement and agitation. However, the raw scores of the questions were always in favour of having the robot while performing the activity which could indicate a positive attitude towards having the robot. Due to certain practical limitations of the course, we could not conduct the experiment with actual PwD or set it up in such a way but given enough time and effort the current implementation in Pepper could be extended to an actual care home with PwDs.
	169	+
170	170	=== References ===
171	171
172	172	1. Mullen, S.P., Olson, E.A., Phillips, S.M. //et al.// Measuring enjoyment of physical activity in older adults: invariance of the physical activity enjoyment scale (paces) across groups and time. //Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act// **8**, 103 (2011). https:~/~/doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-103