Skip to Content
Last modified by Hrishita Chakrabarti on 2023/04/10 17:38
From version 7.2
edited by Hrishita Chakrabarti
on 2023/04/10 16:50
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 7.3
edited by Hrishita Chakrabarti
on 2023/04/10 16:59
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -88,10 +88,17 @@
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: ==
91 +== Week 5: Design Specifications ==
92 92  
93 -== Week 6: ==
94 94  
94 +== Week 6: Implementation and Initial Testings ==
95 +
96 +This week we focused on finalising our system design and implementing our design using the Interactive Robots platform. For our evaluation, we decided on testing our robot in two scenarios - one where it encouraged conversation while narrating a story from the patient's past; the second where it only narrated the story as the patient had their meal. To avoid any bias from the story's content, we decided that the story narrated in both scenarios would be the same but we still would like the patient/caretaker to have some choices when it comes to which story they would like to hear to avoid monotony.
97 +
98 +The team and I then brainstormed on short but nostalgic stories and came up with two stories - a picnic outing with family and a Thanksgiving dinner with family. We fleshed out the story with the dialogues and prompts and then implemented the story flow on the Interactive Robots platform. During the implementation, we realised that using Interactive Robots we couldn't connect to Pepper's tablet so we modified the prompts such that the prompts would appear on the device held by the caretaker. We first tested out the motions and flow of the story on the virtual robot and once we were satisfied we booked a slot for testing it on the Pepper robot.
99 +
100 +While testing with Pepper we realised the audio inputs weren't very accurate and often the robot failed to pick up the trigger word so we modified the triggers such that the robot would respond to speech or an alternative touch/remote action such that the flow of conversation is not interrupted during the actual evaluation.
101 +
95 95  == Week 7: Evaluation ==
96 96  
97 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.**