Changes for page Simran - Self Reflection

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1	1	=== Week 1: Introduction to Socio-Cognitive Engineering ===
2	2
3		-==== Lecture: Introduction ====
	3	+===== =====
4	4
5	5	The lecture introduced me to the standards of human-centered design and the concepts of socio-cognitive engineering.
6	6	The ReJAM and PAL projects were explained along with videos. These demonstrated how a robot can be used as a social actor for stimulating social, cognitive, affective and physical processes through building a human-robot partnership. These projects served as incredible inspiration for building robotic intervention for people with special needs, such as children with Type I diabetes or elderly residents of Pieter Van Foreest suffering from dementia.
...	...	@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
7	7
8	8	We were also introduced to dementia, and challenges faced by people with dementia as the domain for which we would build a hybrid intelligence system.
9	9
10		-====
11		-Lab session: Storyboard, Quick Start ====
	10	+==== Storyboard, Quick Start ====
12	12
13		-In the lab session, more details were given about the expectations from the project, and where to begin.
	12	+==== (% style="-webkit-text-size-adjust:100%; font-size:14px" %)In the lab session, more details were given about the expectations from the project, and where to begin. (%%) ====
	13	+
14	14	My teammates and I started with an activity session in which we identified use cases associated with the challenges faced by people with dementia. My teammates and I used charts, sticker, and markers to create a storyboard around daily life situations faced by Georgina, the persona of our person with dementia. We also came up with personas and values after identifying other stakeholders, such as the formal caregiver, Eleana and the son of Georgina, Sam. We identified sundown syndrome, loss of interest in mealtime, and lack of interactions with her son Sam as some of the issues faced by her.
15	15	The storyboard activity played a big role in getting our creativity fired up and after narrowing down on the mealtime use case, we came up with the idea of employing interactive storytelling in order to help Georgina build back her interest in mealtime, along with providing interaction opportunities with the people around her.
16	16	We put our thoughts and ideas into the Quick Start section in order to kickstart the design of the solution we wanted to build.
...	...	@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
19	19
20	20	=== Week 2: Music Interventions and Scenario-based Design ===
21	21
22		-==== Lecture: Cognition, music, memory and dementia ====
	22	+==== Cognition, music, memory and dementia ====
23	23
24	24	(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
25	25	For this week's lecture, Professor Rebecca Schaefer gave a very interesting talk about how cognitive changes occur with dementia and how interventions can be designed and measured to enhance cognitive stimulation in a person with dementia. She also talked about the psychology of music and how music stimulates the brain. She further explained how music intervention can be designed for people with dementia and the benefits it can have.
...	...	@@ -27,8 +27,7 @@
27	27	(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
28	28	While our use case does not directly involve music in the solution design, this lecture inspired me and my teammates to incorporate music in the interactive storytelling intervention that we were focusing on building. We discussed using pleasant background music during narration to provide a more immersive storytelling experience, along with playing the PwD's favourite songs while they ate. The cognitive stimulatory benefits of music therapy as discussed in the lecture provided for a solid foundation for this consideration.
29	29
30		-====
31		-Lab session: Scenario-based Design, Foundation ====
	30	+==== Scenario-based Design, Foundation ====
32	32
33	33	The lab session revisited the steps of the SCE method, with a focus on the Foundation part and an emphasis on Inclusive Design.
34	34	We also discussed in detail about our personas and their associated value stories, in order to inform our design decisions better.
...	...	@@ -39,12 +39,11 @@
39	39
40	40	=== Week 3: PAL project, Specification ===
41	41
42		-==== Lecture: PAL ====
	41	+==== PAL ====
43	43
44	44	In this week's lecture I learnt about how the PAL project used the SCE design cycle for building a hybrid diabetes management system for children with Type 1 diabetes. The lecture re-iterated the importance of stakeholder analysis and building value stories to inform our design. Further, I learnt about having a strong theoretical underpinning for our design through the example of how Collaborative Learning Theory is used for designing the PAL project. Along with this, we also briefly discussed that the choices of technologies for implementing our design should be intentional, personalized and affective.
45	45
46		-====
47		-Lab session: Specification ====
	45	+==== Specification ====
48	48
49	49	In the lab session, we focused on how to extract a coherent set of use cases, functions, and claims which would serve as the Specification for our design from the Foundation built on operational demands, human factors, and technology. We focused on developing the objectives we wanted to design for, the requirements from our agent, and the personalized claims we would make.
50	50	This week helped me understand how the design of a hybrid intelligence system is an incremental iterative process that grows by integrating technology into the situated practice via co-design by co-learning through building objectives, shared knowledge bases and learning by explanations and feedback.
...	...	@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
65	65
66	66	=== Week 5: Design Specifications ===
67	67
68		-==== Lecture: Design Patterns, Design Rationale ====
	66	+==== Design Patterns, Design Rationale ====
69	69
70	70	(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
71	71	This week we learnt about Team Design Patterns and Interaction Design Patterns which provided important concepts and tools for designing the interactions between actors for our system.
...	...	@@ -76,8 +76,7 @@
76	76	(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
77	77	We worked on building the IDP by exploring how the different actors in our scenario could and should interact with each other. This shaped the TDP for our main use case of the interactive storytelling session. Through this process, I learnt the importance of pattern-based design in identifying recurrent/generalizable problems within a context and defining structured descriptions for the solution to it.
78	78
79		-====
80		-Lab session: Planning Evaluations ====
	77	+==== Planning Evaluations ====
81	81
82	82	We also learnt about how evaluations should be planned for our prototype. The purpose of the evaluations is to assess the claims at the task level and check the usability of the interaction design. We were introduced to various approaches, like qualitative analysis to formulate hypothesis and quantitative analysis to test the hypothesis.
83	83
...	...	@@ -89,25 +89,27 @@
89	89
90	90	This week was quite informative and learning intensive in terms of all the factors, practical and ethical, that need to be considered while designing an evaluation for a system.
91	91
92		-=== Week 6: Prototype Implementation and Initial Testing ===
	89	+=== Week 6: Prototype Implementation, Pilot testing ===
93	93
94		-==== Lecture: Ontologies ====
	91	+(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="HLecture:Ontologies" %)
	92	+The focus of this week was implementing our prototype and testing it out within our group. We used Interactive Robots to program the Pepper robot with two pre-filled story templates - Picnic and Thanksgiving - for the testing of our Interactive Storytelling session use case. During this process, we built two versions of each story, non-interactive: one with simple narration and another, interactive: with inbuilt prompts to spark conversations. We planned to gauge the usefulness of the interaction design in our evaluations through comparison of the experimental interactive scenario with the control non-interactive scenario.
95	95
96		-====
97		-Lab session: Implementing prototype, Evaluation Study Planning ====
	94	+(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
	95	+With implementation, we faced some challenges with the Pepper robot in using its tablet and getting it to recognize our speech and touch input. We were able to mitigate them by coming up with alternatives such as touch action on remote laptop screen through clicks, in order to preserve the flow of interactions. Working with the Pepper robot and being able to self-test the functionality we envisioned to build was quite interesting and further helped refine the design we had been building through our incrementally iterative design process.
98	98
99		-We were given the time for the lab session to work on our prototype and planning our evaluation.
100	100
101		-
102	102	=== Week 7: ===
103	103
104		-==== Lecture: Human-Agent/Robot Teamwork ====
	100	+The focus of this week was conducting the evaluation for our prototype with participants and analyzing the results. We had prepared the participation consent form and the measurements questionnaire along with the prototype on the Pepper robot. Since we had limited time and a limited number of participants, we decided to conduct a within-study evaluation, wherein we would have each participant evaluate both the control and the experiment scenario. We also decided that for half of the total evaluation sessions, we would present the participant with the control scenario first, and for the other half, we would present the experimental scenario first. This strategy was employed in order to mitigate carry-over bias.
105	105
106		-====
107		-Lab session: Conducted Evaluation ====
	102	+For each evaluation session, the participants first signed the consent form. Then they engaged in the first storytelling session, filled in the questionnaire, engaged in the second storytelling session, and filled in the questionnaire again. It was really interesting and informative to see how the participants responded to our interaction design, and how our system was perceived by them. Further, participating in other groups’ evaluation sessions also provided a broader view of the kind of effects our peers were trying to have with their design and what they considered worthwhile to measure.
108	108
109		-We used the lab session to prepare our evaluation.
	104	+With the evaluation completed, we analyzed the results through a statistical test to determine significant results. With this, our claims around improving the mood of the person with dementia through interactive storytelling were confirmed. The entire process taught me a lot about how to assess a system design in terms of the claims it makes for the effects it wants to achieve.
110	110
111	111	=== Week 8: Group Presentation - Endterm ===
112	112
113		-==== ====
	108	+(% class="wikigeneratedid" id="H" %)
	109	+We compiled our project work and the results from the evaluation and I along with two of my teammates presented them to the class. We received interesting questions from our peers and the professors, which further helped us critically reflect on our design decisions. I also had an interesting discussion about designing the system in a way such that it minimises the possible negative effects that it could also have.
	110	+
	111	+(% class="wikigeneratedid" %)
	112	+To conclude, designing a robotic intervention for people with dementia took us through the entire SCE process. It was a fruitful journey in which we learned by experimenting, analyzing and reflecting.