Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

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 +12,7 @@
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:
	15	+The negative effects of Pepper were also measured in the questionnaire (covered in Godspeed)
16	16
17	17	~1. Pepper was annoying.
18	18
...	...	@@ -26,11 +26,11 @@
26	26
27	27	== 2.1 Participants ==
28	28
29		-<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'.
	29	+A total of 14 TU Delft students participated in the study. There were 9 male and 5 female participants. Due to limited time, targeted users (patients with Dementia) could not be included in the study, and all participants were students.
30	30
31	31	== 2.2 Experimental design ==
32	32
33		-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.
	33	+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 carryover bias of talking to one robot before the other.
34	34
35	35	== 2.3 Tasks ==
36	36
...	...	@@ -40,22 +40,18 @@
40	40
41	41	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:
42	42
43		-~1. Was the patient in a better mood while eating?
	43	+1. Please rate the anthropomorphism of the agent on the following scale. - 1- Fake, 5- Natural
44	44
45		-2. Was the story interesting and engaging?
	45	+2. Please rate the anthropomorphism of the agent on the following scale. - 1 - Machine Like, 5 - Human like
46	46
47		-3. Did the patient enjoy their meal?
	47	+3. Please rate the anthropomorphism of the agent on the following scale. - 1 - Unconscious, 5 - conscious
48	48
49		-4. Did the patient completed their meal?
	49	+4.
50	50
51		-5. How much time did the patient take to complete their meal?
	51	+5.
52	52
53		-6. Was Pepper found to be annoying?
	53	+6.
54	54
55		-7. Was Pepper not human like?
56		-
57		-8. Was Pepper disturbing?
58		-
59	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	60
61	61	== 2.5 Procedure ==
...	...	@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
78	78
79	79	8. The experiment is now completed and they can leave.
80	80
81		-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.
	77	+The non interactive stories and interactive stories were hard-coded for now. They were personalized based on a made-up scenario. This must be changed according to the patient's experiences. The same story was used for both situations, only difference being: the non interactive robot narrated the story without any scope for interaction between family members, whereas the interactive robot used the same story to promote engagement with the family.
82	82
83	83	== 2.6 Material ==
84	84