Changes for page Anagha - Self Reflection

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -13,35 +13,12 @@
13	13
14	14	== Week 3: PAL ==
15	15
16		-
17		-In week 3 we learned about PAL ( Physically Assisted Learning). PAL is a robot intervention system designed to help children with Type 1 diabetes manage their blood glucose levels. The system uses collaborative learning, a theory that suggests individuals learn better when actively interacting with the information, to teach children how to become self-sufficient in managing their diabetes. The robot interacts with the child through games and conversations, reminding them to check their blood glucose levels regularly, administer insulin, and cope with T1DM. PAL uses an adaptive robot that tailors tasks in games to the child's learning progress, motivating them to perform the activity. Evaluation results showed that children preferred playing with the adaptive robot more than the non-adaptive variant, as it helped them learn better. The project exemplifies the partnership between humans and robots, where both work together to achieve objectives and goals.
18		-
19		-This week, the focus was on defining use cases, environments, stakeholders, values, and personas for the project. We finalized personas, stakeholders, environment, design, and problem scenarios for the project, using supporting literature and research in their design scenarios. We decided to use the Pepper robot for their project. While our use case is not intended for learning, creating a more collaborative and conversational robot for the project could motivate the patient to look forward to their daily activities.
20		-
21	21	== Week 4: First Presentation ==
22	22
23		-My teammates, Hrishitha and Manali, presented our project on an intervention to assist a person with dementia, Georgina, during mealtimes. We introduced a robot that would act as a storyteller, engaging all the direct stakeholders present in easy-going and nostalgic conversations around the story it narrates. The presentation received feedback and questions that were used to improve the design for implementation. Our approach was unique in that we targeted patients at home with family, which provided more freedom to involve family members, but the disadvantage of this was that it was more expensive than in a care home. We learned about use case design and the team design pattern, which helped us provide a detailed overview of the project and visualize how it would work. We also explained their reasoning for choosing certain features and not choosing others.
24		-
25	25	== Week 5: Design Specifications ==
26	26
27		-
28		-In this week's learning, the focus was on the design of a task level for a robot, collaboration, and evaluation of the prototype robots. We learned about task-level design (TLD) and how it plays a vital role in the functioning of a robot. The TLD involves defining what the robot should be doing, the use case, and the motivation effect behind the robot's action. The use case is particularly important, as it sets the context for the robot and determines the actors involved, where the robot will be working, and when it should intervene. The motivation effect helps justify the robot's actions by showing what effect the actions will have and is supported by relevant theory and empirical studies.
29		-
30		-We were introduced to team design patterns (TDP) and interaction design patterns (IDP) and how they relate to the TLD. TDP provides an abstract representation of the TLD, including the problem, solution structure, solution description, human and robot requirements, and consequences. IDP, on the other hand, focuses on the interaction level design, including how the robot will perform the requirements.
31		-
32		-The evaluation of prototype robots is essential to determine the effectiveness and safety of the robot. Different factors must be considered when evaluating prototype robots, including practical issues, ethics committee permission, formative vs. summative evaluation, measures and their levels, and tools. We used the Godspeed questionnaire, which measures how human-like and likable the robot is, as well as custom questions pertaining to the use case.
33		-
34		-We also learned about ontologies and how they can represent users and their properties in one diagram. An ontology is an explicit representation of knowledge, including entities used in the system, their structure, classes, instances, relationships, and properties. Ontologies can be used to represent patients with dementia, their relationships, and properties such as their age and gender.
35		-
36		-Finally, we performed a pilot study of our project using Pepper at the Insyght Lab to test the basic connections and familiarize ourselves with the robot. We encountered some issues with the tablet not working, which we later realized was due to a connection issue with InteractiveRobotics. We tested voice and touch inputs and concluded that voice input may not be so accurate, so we went ahead with a backup touch input instead.
37		-
38	38	== Week 6: Implementation and Initial Testings ==
39	39
40		-
41		-We focused on finalizing the system design and implementing it on the Interactive Robots platform for evaluation. We decided to test the robot in two scenarios, one where it encouraged conversation and the other where it only narrated a story. We came up with two short stories and tested the motions and flow of the story on the virtual robot before booking a slot for testing on the Pepper robot. During the testing, we modified the prompts and triggers to ensure the flow of conversation was not interrupted. We had a successful testing session with the final code, where the (person who played the) nurse clicked on the correct button on the screen to make choices since voice input was unreliable.
42		-
43		-In addition,we also learned about the importance of inclusive design, which considers special cases like minorities and persons with disabilities. There was an emphasis on the need to gather users' needs before the start of the design and to think outside the box to cater to a larger population. During testing, we tested both story versions with all participants involved and focused on whether the prompts made logical sense in the context. The session gave chances for the family members to interact with each other, and the nurse would prompt Pepper to continue with the story by patting its head. Overall,we were successful in implementing their design and ensuring the inclusivity of our project.
44		-
45	45	== Week 7: Evaluation ==
46	46
47	47	== Week 8: Final Presentation ==