Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Manali Shah on 2023/04/11 18:38
From version 5.1
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/03/16 19:19
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 6.2
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/04/01 01:16
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
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 +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 using a modified Godspeed questionnaire. The questions added were:
4 4  
5 5  ~1. The mood of the patient after the meal with storytelling.
6 6  
... ... @@ -12,7 +12,15 @@
12 12  
13 13  5. Time taken to complete the meal: Too much time could mean the patient did not enjoy the meal, or that they were too engaged and hence it took longer. A critical analysis is needed to evaluate this measure.
14 14  
15 +The negative effects of Pepper were also measured in the questionnaire (covered in Godspeed)
15 15  
17 +~1. Pepper was annoying.
18 +
19 +2. Pepper was not human.
20 +
21 +3. Pepper was disturbing.
22 +
23 +
16 16  = 2. Method =
17 17  
18 18  
... ... @@ -32,19 +32,24 @@
32 32  
33 33  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. The following questions were asked:
34 34  
35 -~1. The patient was in a better mood while eating.
43 +~1. Was the patient in a better mood while eating?
36 36  
37 -2.The story was interesting and engaging.
45 +2. Was the story interesting and engaging?
38 38  
39 -3. The patient enjoyed the meal.
47 +3. Did the patient enjoy their meal?
40 40  
41 -4. The patient completed the meal.
49 +4. Did the patient completed their meal?
42 42  
43 -5. Time taken to finish the meal.
51 +5. How much time did the patient take to complete their meal?
44 44  
45 -The answers to these questions for both questionnaires were recorded, and the p-value was calculated to find the significance of the differences.
53 +6. Was Pepper found to be annoying?
46 46  
55 +7. Was Pepper not human like?
47 47  
57 +8. Was Pepper disturbing?
58 +
59 +The answers to these questions for both questionnaires were recorded, and the p-value was calculated to find the significance of the differences (if any).
60 +
48 48  == 2.5 Procedure ==
49 49  
50 50  For the experiment, the following steps were performed for each participant: