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: ====
...	...	@@ -88,66 +88,10 @@
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: Design Specifications ==
	73	+== Week 5: ==
92	92
93		-==== Task Level Design (Collaboration): ====
	75	+== Week 6: ==
94	94
95		-**Requirement: **What should the robot be doing? This forms the function(s)** **of the robot.
96		-
97		-**Use Case:** Where is the robot working? When should it intervene? Who** **are the actors involved? This gives the robot the context
98		-
99		-**Motivation effect:** Why should the robot be performing the action? What are we as designers claiming will be the effect of the robot's action? (Justify with theory and empirical studies)
100		-
101		-**Team Design Patterns (TDP):**
102		-
103		-Abstract representation of the Task Level Design
104		-
105		-TDP Table consists of the Problem, the Solution Structure (Diagrammatic), the Solution Description (Action Sequence), the Human and Robot requirements, and the Consequences (Effect)
106		-
107		-==== Interaction Level Design (Communication): ====
108		-
109		-**How** will the robot perform the requirement?
110		-
111		-Form a premise based on some literature
112		-
113		-For example: In PAL system the premise for the robot to sympathise with the child was that the child will recognize the robot's bodily emotional expressions correctly hence the child will feel like the robot is able to understand them and will like to interact with the robot more and consequently learn more as they interact.
114		-
115		-**Interaction Design Patterns (IDP):** Abstract representation of the Interaction Level Design
116		-
117		-==== Evaluations: ====
118		-
119		-- Evaluations should show that the claims were right; should also check that the implementations are safe (privacy and safety of all the actors involved)
120		-
121		-- **Formative Evaluations**
122		-
123		-* open questions which explore the quality of design and how to improve it
124		-* for our use case, we decided not to use formative evaluations since our evaluations would only be conducted by the person with dementia and in a real-world scenario they may not be able to provide such an analysis
125		-
126		-- **Summative Evaluations**
127		-
128		-* Focus on overall effect; Investigate whether people are able to reach the objectives
129		-* Yes/No questions which answer our hypotheses
130		-* We chose summative evaluations as the person with dementia would be able to let us know accurately whether their mood was improved after using the robot or not; also whether they finished their meal or not was another measurement that can easily be taken
131		-
132		-- **Measurements**
133		-
134		-* Objective (efficiency and effectiveness) v/s Subjective (user satisfaction) measures
135		-* For our use case we planned on both objective (whether the patient finishes their meal or not - effectiveness) and Subjective (whether the patient's mood improved after using our solution or not) measures
136		-* However, upon further discussions, we realised that objective measurement would not be possible as the evaluation conducted would be in a simulated environment hence the effectiveness could not be reliably measured, hence we decided to evaluate the subjective measurements
137		-
138		-- **Online Experimentation**
139		-
140		-* To avoid using paper for our evaluations we decided to host our questionnaires online
141		-* Our first go-to was Google Forms but upon learning it doesn't abide by the regulations of GDPR we switched to Qualtrics for our evaluation forms
142		-
143		-== Week 6: Implementation and Initial Testings ==
144		-
145		-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.
146		-
147		-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 they 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.
148		-
149		-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.
150		-
151	151	== Week 7: Evaluation ==
152	152
153	153	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.**
...	...	@@ -160,8 +160,9 @@
160	160
161	161	2. Control Scenario, wherein the robot narrated the story and enacted conversations via voice modulations to portray different characters
162	162
163		-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 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.
164	164
	90	+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.
	91	+
165	165	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.
166	166
167	167	== Week 8: Final Presentation ==