Changes for page Hrishita - Self Reflection

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -10,22 +10,6 @@
10	10
11	11	Talked further in detail in next week's guest lecture.
12	12
13		-==== ReJAM: ====
14		-
15		-Targeted for elderly residents of Pieter Van Foreest suffering from dementia
16		-
17		-The ReJAM project is designed to stimulate the patients socially, cognitively, affectively, and physically through music-related activities
18		-
19		-Some examples of activities:
20		-
21		-- Playing the patient's favourite music and asking them if it reminds them of something (reminiscence)
22		-
23		-- Asking the patient to follow the robot's movement to dance along with it (physical rehab)
24		-
25		-- Playing music bingo (memory practice)
26		-
27		-The robot would also act as a social actor and be a companion to the elderly patients by chatting with them, singing songs together, playing games, etc
28		-
29	29	==== Learning with Charlie: ====
30	30
31	31	Targeted for children suffering from Type 1 diabetes and their parents and caregivers.
...	...	@@ -36,12 +36,10 @@
36	36
37	37	==== Lab Activity: ====
38	38
39		-Formed teams and discussed a possible use case for developing a system of robot intervention for aiding a Person with Dementia (PwD). We learnt about the different robots available for the project - Nao, Pepper, and Miro.
	23	+Formed teams and discussed a possible use case for developing a system of robot intervention for aiding a Person with Dementia (PwD).
40	40
41		-My team and I decided to focus on mealtime, especially during dinner when a PwD at the moderate stage of dementia suffers from confusion, anxiety and irritability due to Sundown Syndrome. We created three personas to develop our use-case scenario - Georgina (the PwD), Eleana (formal caretaker), and Sam (family member). After discussions within the team, we decided that the Pepper robot would be the best suited for our use case as it can narrate stories and display pictures on the screen attached to its torso. While both Nao and Pepper are humanoid robots capable of holding conversations, we decided to stick with Pepper as our use case did not require too much movement by the robot, and the height of the Pepper robot was also better suited for this use case such that it could stand in front or around the PwD while narrating the story.
	25	+My team and I decided to focus on mealtime, especially during dinner when a PwD at the moderate stage of dementia suffers from confusion, anxiety and irritability due to Sundown Syndrome. We created three personas to develop our use-case scenario - Georgina (the PwD), Eleana (formal caretaker), and Sam (family member). We received positive feedback for our chosen problem scenario so we decided to conduct further research into existing literature about the use case for better understanding and consequent system design.
42	42
43		-We received positive feedback for our chosen problem scenario so we decided to conduct further research into existing literature about the use case for better understanding and consequent system design.
44		-
45	45	== Week 2: Dementia, Memory and Music as an Intervention ==
46	46
47	47	==== Cognitive change is natural: ====
...	...	@@ -70,47 +70,14 @@
70	70
71	71	The normal human brain uses various pathways/networks of the brain to perceive different aspects of music. The brain is highly engaged when perceiving music hence the great potential for using it in rehabilitation. Music is already used by everyday individuals as a mood regulator in their everyday lives, it also provides a great opportunity for social interaction, and can even get the person moving to the rhythm (potential for movement rehabilitation).
72	72
73		-== Week 3: PAL ==
	55	+==== Lab Session: ====
74	74
75		-The robot intervention system PAL was aimed at teaching kids with Type 1 diabetes how to become self-sufficient in managing their blood glucose levels (T1DM). The system through games and conversations would remind the kid to check their blood glucose levels and administer their prescribed dosage of insulin regularly, look forward to their meals and exercises and overall learn to cope with T1DM.
	57	+We learnt about two sections of research and documentation for our system design  - Operational Demands and Human Factors. My team and I first discussed the problem scenario in depth so that all of us were on the same page and then discussed the stakeholders in our use case and elaborated on our direct stakeholder personas deciding on their values relevant to the problem scenario.
76	76
77		-Through the project presentation, I was able to learn several aspects of robot intervention designs and how they can be evaluated.
	59	+== Week 3: First Presentation ==
78	78
79		-==== Collaborative Learning: ====
80		-
81		-The PAL system was based on the theory of collaborative learning which believes that individuals learn better when they actively interact with the information such as through knowledge exchange, sharing their experiences, etc. The educator's role in this kind of learning is to ensure that the learner's experience is within their **Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD)**, i.e the content to be learnt should be in an optimal zone where the difficulty of the content is not too high for the learner's skill level that they are left confused but it should neither be too simple for the learner's skill level that they are bored.
82		-
83		-In PAL they made use of collaborative learning by deploying a robot which would not only play along with the kid but the robot would also adapt the tasks in the game to the kid's learning progress. The developers believed this would motivate the kids to perform the activity as it is tailored to their capabilities and would therefore be fun for them, however, they also noted that some kids may not reach the minimum performance level that they set within the time of evaluation due their relatively long learning curve. Their evaluation results corroborated their claim, and the children chose to play with the adaptive robot more often than the non-adaptive variant. They also noticed when using the adaptive robot, individual patients converted to their personal level of learning over the evaluation period which also corroborated their second claim. In the case of the non-adaptive robot, the kids all converged to a more common learning level with a lower overall mean across the patients.
84		-
85		-== Week 4: First Presentation ==
86		-
87	87	My teammate and I presented our chosen problem scenario and our plans for the robot intervention. We elaborated on our personas and the issues all our direct stakeholders are facing during Georgina (the PwD)'s mealtime. Georgina is losing interest in her meals, Sam her son feels hesitant to talk to his mother for fear of triggering her anxiety/irritability and Eleana wishes to see her patient happy. Thus we introduce an intervention wherein the robot takes the role of a storyteller and engages all the present direct stakeholders in easy-going and nostalgic conversations around the story it narrates.
88	88
89	89	At the end of the presentation, we received some feedback and questions which we then used to improve our design for our implementation.
90	90
91		-== Week 5: ==
92		-
93		-== Week 6: ==
94		-
95		-== Week 7: Evaluation ==
96		-
97		-Our hypothesis was that **a more interactive i.e conversational robot (experiment scenario) would be better at improving the PwD's mood as well as creating a more immersive and enjoyable storytelling session which would motivate the PwD to finish their meal enthusiastically.**
98		-
99		-Due to the limited number of participants as well as the limited time available for evaluation, my team and I decided to conduct a **within-study** for our evaluation. We invited fellow students taking this course as well as other TU delft students to participate in our experiment. Each participant would be first asked to sign a consent form after which we explained to them how the evaluation would be conducted. The participant would first perform one story session with the robot and then report their evaluation through a questionnaire and then perform another story session with the robot followed by the same questionnaire once again. In both scenarios, the participant took the role of the PwD while the roles of the formal caretaker and family member were performed by one of us within the team.
100		-
101		-There were two types of storytelling sessions which the participant had to participate in and evaluate:
102		-
103		-~1. Experiment scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and in between asked questions to spark conversations
104		-
105		-2. Control Scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and enacted conversations via voice modulations to portray different characters
106		-
107		-
108		-We were able to perform the experiment with 14 participants. Half of the participants started with the control scenario and the other half started with the experiment scenario so that our results and analysis would not be influenced by the carry-over bias. The questionnaire used for evaluation was based on the Godspeed questionnaire which tests of perceived anthropomorphism, animacy, safety and the threat of the robot. We modified the questionnaire to also evaluate the mood of the patient (participant) after each story session as well as how much they enjoyed the story.
109		-
110		-We conducted a **one-tailed paired test (dependent t-test)** to test for the statistical significance of our results. All three of our added questions were significant proving that the conversational robots **significantly improved the patient's mood** in comparison to the non-conversational robot. Some other significant differences between the conversational robot and non-conversational robot were that the patients in general perceived the conversational robot to be **more natural and responsible** and they also **liked** the conversational robot more than the non-conversational robot.
111		-
112		-== Week 8: Final Presentation ==
113		-
114		-My teammates presented our project. They first began with a quick recap of our problem scenario and personas and then moved on to our design scenario elaborating on the theories on which we based our design. Then they explained our experiment and control scenarios, followed by our evaluation procedure and results, and finally wrapped up with our takeaways and limitations.
115		-
116		-We received some feedback on our choice of evaluation questionnaire and statistical analysis which we then added to our XWiki report as part of our critical analysis and takeaway for future projects.
	65	+== Week 4: ==