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 4.2
edited by Manali Shah
on 2023/03/16 19:19
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 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 5  ~1. The mood of the patient after the meal with storytelling.
6 6  
... ... @@ -12,15 +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 (covered in Godspeed)
16 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  
... ... @@ -40,24 +40,19 @@
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?
35 +~1. The patient was in a better mood while eating.
44 44  
45 -2. Was the story interesting and engaging?
37 +2.The story was interesting and engaging.
46 46  
47 -3. Did the patient enjoy their meal?
39 +3. The patient enjoyed the meal.
48 48  
49 -4. Did the patient completed their meal?
41 +4. The patient completed the meal.
50 50  
51 -5. How much time did the patient take to complete their meal?
43 +5. Time taken to finish the meal.
52 52  
53 -6. Was Pepper found to be annoying?
45 +The answers to these questions for both questionnaires were recorded, and the p-value was calculated to find the significance of the differences.
54 54  
55 -7. Was Pepper not human like?
56 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: