Changes for page 4. Evaluation Methods

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -9,20 +9,13 @@
9	9
10	10	**Research Question**
11	11
12		-"Can personalized, interactive storytelling have a positive effect on the well-being of people with dementia?"
	12	+"Is interactive storytelling more engaging and beneficial than storytelling in the third person for persons suffering from dementia?"
13	13
14		-Sub RQ1: Does it improve the patient’s mood?
15		-Sub RQ2: Does it spark interactions with other people?
16		-Sub RQ3: Does it motivate them to complete their daily activities?
17		-Sub RQ4: Does it promote memory retention?
18		-Sub RQ5: Does it improve the storytelling experience?
19		-
20	20	Thus, our control situation is the scenario of a robot narrating a story without any involvement of the patient, and the scenario we want to evaluate is the one where the robot narrates the same story while trying to engage and take inputs from the patient. With this, we aim to find whether it is beneficial and engaging for patients with dementia.
21	21
22		-
23	23	**The Within-Subject Design**
24	24
25		-As part of the experiment design, we chose the within subject design over between subject. This means that each participant will interact with the robot twice. This was done due to the limited number of participants, and to avoid any biases of participant preferences. However, we ensure that the order of talking to each robot changes with the participant, i.e, half the participants talk to the robot in the control situation first and then the robot in the experimental situation. For the other half this order is reversed. This was done to avoid carry over effects.
	18	+As part of the experiment design, we chose the within subject design over between subject. This means that each participant will interact with the robot twice. This was done due to the limited number of participants, and to avoid any biases of participant preferences.
26	26
27	27
28	28	**Summative Evaluation**
...	...	@@ -32,10 +32,8 @@
32	32
33	33	**Questionnaire**
34	34
35		-We used a modified version of the Godspeed questionnaire for our evaluation [1]. It measures the **anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, intelligence, and safety** of the robot. This uses a Likert scale where the user must rate questions as a number between 1 and 5; both numbers being at opposite poles. We decided to go ahead with the Godspeed questionnaire, because in dealing with patients with dementia, it seemed relevant to measure the above mentioned 5 characteristics of the robot, as they play an important role in making the patient feel more comfortable and at ease.
	28	+We used a modified version of the Godspeed questionnaire for our evaluation [1]. It measures the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, intelligence, and safety of the robot. This uses a Likert scale where the user must rate questions as a number between 1 and 5; both numbers being at opposite poles. To measure whether patients with dementia completed the activity they were meant to do, and to evaluate whether storytelling made a difference to their meal, we added the following questions:
36	36
37		-To measure whether patients with dementia completed the activity they were meant to do, and to evaluate whether storytelling made a difference to their meal, we added the following questions:
38		-
39	39	1. Please rate the question according to the following attributes. - Mood of the patient after the activity. (Scale of 1 to 5)
40	40
41	41	2. Please rate the question according to the following attributes. - Patient's feedback about the story experience (Scale of 1 to 5)