Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Ilinca Rentea on 2023/04/11 12:25
From version 6.1
edited by Varun Singh
on 2023/04/10 18:57
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 9.1
edited by Marijn Roelvink
on 2023/04/10 21:45
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.varunsingh3000
1 +XWiki.MarijnRoelvink
Content
... ... @@ -69,104 +69,62 @@
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.
73 +
74 +
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" %)
78 +[[image:RQ1.png||height="297" width="812"]]
76 76  
77 -○ Independent variable: with/without robot
78 -○ Dependent variable: level of engagement
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.
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 +[[image:1681152536590-277.png||height="327" width="783"]]
85 85  
86 -○ Independent variable: with/without robot
87 -○ Dependent variable: level of agitation
88 -
89 -
90 90  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
91 -**PACES Questionnaire handpicked questions**
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.
92 92  
93 93  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
94 -Q1 Did you enjoy the activity?
91 +**Aggregated score**
95 95  
96 96  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
97 -Q2 Did you feel interested in the activity?
98 -Q3 Did you like performing the activity?
99 99  
100 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
101 -Q4 Did you find the activity pleasurable?
102 -Q5 Were you absorbed in the activity?
95 +[[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/8pM8mwBwL6UidLnOFDJ_Bjl6EA10teBaiLZe7Wseh8RXDvNImY4MiCzu-ygAUvMvUwBxlN5wV7hsHJZJHZ-x_yGbepWHWqfkLU9HL9mCyHwie8KrSlE9YVBSQuy2DaxRsLuIpRAbEISTCe4X0EFUVJOyuw=s2048||height="260" width="308"]]
103 103  
104 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
105 -Q6 Was the activity a lot of fun?
97 +To assess the general positive impact of the robot, we also aggregated the scores to compared both test settings. This result also proved to be non-conclusive (P= 0.228).
106 106  
107 107  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
108 -Q7 Did you find the activity energizing?
100 +**After Activity questions**
109 109  
110 110  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
111 -Q8 Did you the activity make you feel happy?
103 +We also analysed the After Activity questions. These were asked to assess the robots' positive influence on [[EF01: Continued and improved engagement in painting>>doc:2\. Specification.Claims.E1.WebHome]] (Q3) and the robots' positive influence on the competence part of the Self Determination Theory (Q4).
112 112  
113 113  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
114 -Q9 Was the activity pleasant?
106 +[[image:1681154434106-542.png||height="249" width="582"]]
115 115  
116 116  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
117 -Q10 Were you frustrated by the activity?
109 +The students were agreeing on average with the statement "I would like to paint more in the future with the robot". However, for question 4, the general response was ambivalent. This is understandable as confidence in certain activity often only comes after multiple repetitions and not in one encounter.
118 118  
119 119  (% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
120 -Q11 Did you find the activity to be gratifying?
112 +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.
121 121  
122 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
123 -Q12 Was the activity stimulating for you?
124 -
125 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
126 -Q13 Did the activity give you a strong sense of accomplishment?
127 -Q14 Did you feel as though there is nothing else you would rather be doing?
128 -
129 -
130 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
131 -**After Activity questions**
132 -
133 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
134 -AQ1 I would like to paint more in the future with the robot.
135 -
136 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
137 -AQ2 I feel more confident in painting by myself because of this activity.
138 -
139 -(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HRQ1:" %)
140 -**Test Results:**
141 -
142 -The result of 1 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=119.0, pvalue=0.16128927639663737)
143 -The result of 2 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=124.5, pvalue=0.23160773305909133)
144 -The result of 3 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=128.0, pvalue=0.2624600220829313)
145 -The result of 4 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=170.0, pvalue=0.8068245764795088)
146 -The result of 5 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=190.0, pvalue=0.37010115387134357)
147 -The result of 6 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=154.5, pvalue=0.8038002705718079)
148 -The result of 7 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=217.0, pvalue=0.07321208012798906)
149 -The result of 8 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=134.0, pvalue=0.3680655063054846)
150 -The result of 9 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=198.5, pvalue=0.23665845074130787)
151 -The result of 10 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=191.0, pvalue=0.3521959055801669)
152 -The result of 11 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=176.0, pvalue=0.6532884156524246)
153 -The result of 12 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=141.5, pvalue=0.5153332738584296)
154 -The result of 13 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=213.5, pvalue=0.09360342686552618)
155 -The result of 14 is : MannwhitneyuResult(statistic=91.0, pvalue=0.022196094647121984)
156 -
157 157  = 4. Discussion =
158 158  
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.
116 +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.
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.
118 +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.
162 162  
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.
120 +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.
164 164  
165 -Overall our results are inconclusive in terms of statistical significance although the raw scores are in favour of the robot even with the limited participant size test that was conducted. Unfortunately based on the experiment we did, the limitations of the experiment such as not having actual PwDs we are unable to conclusively evaluate the added value of a robot.
166 -
167 167  = 5. Conclusions =
168 168  
124 +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  
126 +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.
127 +
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
1681152536590-277.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.MarijnRoelvink
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +177.5 KB
Content
1681154434106-542.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.MarijnRoelvink
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +36.0 KB
Content
RQ1.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.MarijnRoelvink
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +106.4 KB
Content