Skip to Content
Last modified by Varun Singh on 2023/04/05 19:39
From version 3.1
edited by Varun Singh
on 2023/03/14 12:37
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
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: Help PwD to paint
1 +IDP: Guide and suggest the PwD
Content
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,31 @@
1 -**Design problem: **The PwD would like to paint but is not as active as it used to be because of the 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.
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 first instantiates the interaction by first asking the PwD whether they want to perform the painting activity and then at certain milestones of the painting. The suggestions would not be annoying or too frequent so as to not cause annoyance but at proper intervals. The robot's tone 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 PwD is unfamiliar with the flow 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: **For our use case, Pepper triggers the activity using speech and hand gestures, which is to help the PwD paint. 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 the style of the painting and the topic. Appropriate suggestions and instructions are given at proper intervals. 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 +