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: ====
...	...	@@ -94,10 +94,8 @@
94	94
95	95	== Week 7: Evaluation ==
96	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.**
	79	+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 in a modified Godspeed 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.
98	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	101	There were two types of storytelling sessions which the participant had to participate in and evaluate:
102	102
103	103	~1. Experiment scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and in between asked questions to spark conversations
...	...	@@ -104,11 +104,10 @@
104	104
105	105	2. Control Scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and enacted conversations via voice modulations to portray different characters
106	106
	87	+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.
107	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.
	89	+We conducted a one-tailed sample t-test
109	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	112	== Week 8: Final Presentation ==
113	113
114	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.