Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Manali Shah on 2023/04/11 18:38
From version 4.1
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/03/16 18:23
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 1.2
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/03/14 12:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,22 +1,18 @@
1 1  = 1. Introduction =
2 2  
3 -We aim to measure the effectiveness of a robot with interactive storytelling, which provides personalization and opportunities for interaction and activities with the family members of the patients. The control situation was a storytelling robot which narrates the story without any interaction or personalization. We aim to measure the claims made earlier:
3 +<include a short summary of the claims to be tested, i.e., the effects of the functions in a specfic use case>
4 4  
5 -~1. The mood of the patient improves after the interactive storytelling session.
6 6  
7 -2. The patient eats their meals with more eagerness.
8 -
9 -
10 10  = 2. Method =
11 11  
12 12  
13 13  == 2.1 Participants ==
14 14  
15 -<N> TU Delft students participated in the study. There were <n1> male and <n2> female participants, with the average age of <>. Due to limited time, targeted users could not be included in the study, and all participants were from the course 'Socio Cognitive Engineering'.
11 +TU Delft students, 5-6 people?
16 16  
17 17  == 2.2 Experimental design ==
18 18  
19 -The within-subject experimental design was chosen, due to the limited number of participants. So each participant was made to talk to the robot twice. The group was divided into half: the first half interacted with the robot with non-interactive storytelling first (control scenario), and then spoke to the robot with interactive storytelling. For the second half of the group, this order was reversed. This was done to balance any bias of talking to one robot before the other.
15 +Interact with both robots - everyone interacts with both.
20 20  
21 21  == 2.3 Tasks ==
22 22  
... ... @@ -23,45 +23,13 @@
23 23  
24 24  == 2.4 Measures ==
25 25  
26 -The experiment measured the differences between the non interactive storytelling robot (control situation) versus the interactive storytelling robot (experimental situation). After each interaction, the participant filled a questionnaire about how their experience with questions which could be answered on a scale of 1 to 5, with one being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The following questions were asked:
27 27  
28 -~1.
29 -
30 -2.
31 -
32 -The answers to these questions for both questionnaires were recorded, and the p-value was calculated to find the significance of the differences.
33 -
34 -
35 35  == 2.5 Procedure ==
36 36  
37 -For the experiment, the following steps were performed for each participant:
38 38  
39 -~1. Welcome the participant, and explain their tasks.
40 -
41 -2. Make them sign the consent form, making them aware of the data being collected.
42 -
43 -3. Power the robot version on depending on which group of participants they are in.
44 -
45 -4. Make them interact with the first version of the robot.
46 -
47 -5. Once completed, give them a questionnaire to document and fill their experience.
48 -
49 -6. Power the second version of the robot they have to interact with.
50 -
51 -7. Once completed, give them the same questionnaire to fill in their experience.
52 -
53 -8. The experiment is now completed and they can leave.
54 -
55 -The non interactive stories and interactive stories were hard-coded for now. The non interactive story was the robot narrating <S1>, while the interactive story was personalized based on a made-up scenario. This must be changed according to the patient's experiences.
56 -
57 57  == 2.6 Material ==
58 58  
59 -The following materials were used during the experiments:
60 60  
61 -~1. Laptops for consent forms, questionnaires and the code.
62 -
63 -2. The robot pepper.
64 -
65 65  = 3. Results =
66 66  
67 67