Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Manali Shah on 2023/04/11 18:38
From version 6.2
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/04/01 01:16
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 4.1
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/03/16 18:23
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,12 @@
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 using a modified Godspeed questionnaire. The questions added were:
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:
4 4  
5 -~1. The mood of the patient after the meal with storytelling.
5 +~1. The mood of the patient improves after the interactive storytelling session.
6 6  
7 -2. The feedback of the patient for the story.
7 +2. The patient eats their meals with more eagerness.
8 8  
9 -3. The enjoyment level of the patient (given by caregiver)
10 10  
11 -4. Was the meal completed? (given by caregiver)
12 -
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 -
15 -The negative effects of Pepper were also measured in the questionnaire (covered in Godspeed)
16 -
17 -~1. Pepper was annoying.
18 -
19 -2. Pepper was not human.
20 -
21 -3. Pepper was disturbing.
22 -
23 -
24 24  = 2. Method =
25 25  
26 26  
... ... @@ -34,30 +34,18 @@
34 34  
35 35  == 2.3 Tasks ==
36 36  
37 -The Pepper robot was powered on and connected to the laptop before the participants came in. The participants had to sign the consent form, talk to the robots (twice each) and fill in the questionnaire (twice each).
38 38  
39 39  == 2.4 Measures ==
40 40  
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:
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:
42 42  
43 -~1. Was the patient in a better mood while eating?
28 +~1.
44 44  
45 -2. Was the story interesting and engaging?
30 +2.
46 46  
47 -3. Did the patient enjoy their meal?
32 +The answers to these questions for both questionnaires were recorded, and the p-value was calculated to find the significance of the differences.
48 48  
49 -4. Did the patient completed their meal?
50 50  
51 -5. How much time did the patient take to complete their meal?
52 -
53 -6. Was Pepper found to be annoying?
54 -
55 -7. Was Pepper not human like?
56 -
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 -
61 61  == 2.5 Procedure ==
62 62  
63 63  For the experiment, the following steps were performed for each participant: