Skip to Content
Last modified by Varun Singh on 2023/04/05 19:39
From version 1.1
edited by Ruud de Jong
on 2023/02/13 12:00
Change comment: Imported from XAR
To version 5.1
edited by Varun Singh
on 2023/04/05 19:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -IDP: Explain a Group Activity
1 +IDP: Guide and suggest the PwD
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.RuuddeJong
1 +XWiki.varunsingh3000
Content
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,31 @@
1 -**Design problem: **The specific role of the [[Humanoid Robot>>doc:Main.c\. Technology.Humanoid Robot.WebHome]] (e.g., Pepper)  in the group activity (e.g., a game) and the game or activity to play, are not yet known to the [[Person with Dementia>>doc:Main.sdf.Stakeholders.Person with Dementia.WebHome]] (i.e., the participants). The participants do not know how the activity has to be played and how they should participate.
1 +**Design problem: **The PwD would like to paint but they are either not skilled at painting or not confident about their capabilities anymore because of their dementia condition. The Pepper robot in this case helps them to perform the activity and provides meaningful guidance and suggestions while they are doing the activity.
2 2  
3 -**Design solution:** In this design pattern, the robot follows a monologue to explain the activity and what the participants are expected to do in the session. After this monologue, the robot asks for confirmation about whether or not the explanation has been understood. If this is not the case, the explanation is repeated. The tone of the robot remains friendly and uses open gestures to make the interaction less formal.
3 +**Design solution:** In this design pattern, Pepper provides guidance and appropriate suggestions wherever required by the PwD during the painting activity. Pepper does this by suggesting certain topics and styles to the PwD which they choose to comply with or completely ignore and just draw whatever their heart desires. During the painting activity Pepper also provides some general instructions regarding the painting process and the style the PwD might have chosen to help them with the activity.
4 4  
5 -**Use when: **After the introduction but before the start of an activity, when participants are unfamiliar with the goal of the interaction.
5 +**Use when: **During the painting activity at appropriate times such as asking for the painting style.
6 6  
7 -**Design rationale: **This design pattern follows the Didactic Communication pattern introduced by Khan et al., where there is a transmission of information from the robot to the human agent. By explaining the activity, participants will know what to expect and how they can participate in the activity.
7 +**Design rationale: **This design pattern the theories mentioned in [1] where they explain how minimal guidance and suggestions don't work most of the time for the optimal result and why providing appropriate information is necessary for success.
8 8  
9 -**Example: **In our use case (i.e. "group exercise"  as specified by group 4 of the SCE-course in 2020), Pepper explains using speech and hand gestures, the goal of the activity, which is to perform exercise moves together with the PwD. The speech rate is slightly lower than average considering the age and cognitive abilities of the participants. Pepper then explains the steps involved such as playing the song and demonstrating the dance moves that the participants are expected to repeat. Pepper confirms that the explanation is understood and if not, repeats the explanation. For detail on the parameter setting, see the Table below.
9 +**Example: **For our use case, Pepper provides guidance and suggestions at appropriate intervals such as when asking the PwD which style they would like to draw according to, Pepper would provide explanations and information regarding that style. Since Pepper does this verbally the speech rate is slightly lower than average considering the age and cognitive abilities of the participants. For detail on the parameter setting, see the relevant. For detail on the parameter setting, see the Table below.
10 10  
11 11  
12 12  |=(% colspan="2" %)Parameter|=Choice|=Rationale
13 13  |(% colspan="2" %)Gesture Openness|Open|Makes the interaction less formal so that the PwD can familiarize themself better with Pepper.
14 -|(% colspan="2" %)Gaze Diversion|Diverted|Pepper will be able to look at all the PwD instead of fixating on one of them.
15 15  |(% colspan="2" %)Proxemic Closeness|(((
16 16  Average
17 17  
18 -(between close and far)
19 -)))|Kept in the middle since there will be PwD both close and far away from Pepper at the same time.
17 +(close)
18 +)))|Kept close to the PwD.
20 20  |(% rowspan="3" %)Voice
21 21   |(% colspan="1" %)Pitch|Middle|A high pitch makes Pepper sound friendly but it should not be too high otherwise the PwD might not be able to hear Pepper well.
22 -|(% colspan="1" %)Speed|Slower than average|Since the PwD are old, a low speech rate will help them understand Pepper better but it should not be too sow otherwise, they will be bored.
21 +|(% colspan="1" %)Speed|Slower than average|Since the PwD are old, a low speech rate will help them understand Pepper better but it should not be too slow otherwise, they will be bored.
23 23  |(% colspan="1" %)Prosody|Strong|The prosody of the voice should be strong so that Pepper can articulate better.
24 24  |(% colspan="2" %)Speech Acts|Informal|An informal tone makes the interaction more comfortable for the participants.
25 25  |(% colspan="2" %)Eye Color|White|The eyes should be white so as to not distract the PwD.
25 +
26 +
27 +References:
28 +
29 +1. Kirschner, Paul A., John Sweller, and Richard E. Clark. "Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching." //Educational psychologist// 41.2 (2006): 75-86.
30 +
31 +