Skip to Content

Changes for page Hugo

Last modified by Hugo van Dijk on 2023/04/10 15:20
From version 2.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/02/22 11:53
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 3.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/02/22 13:27
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -13,3 +13,21 @@
13 13  offered visual and acoustic stimulation. The findings suggested that a robot has
14 14  the potential to enhance motivation, group coherence, and also mood within the
15 15  walking group
16 +* For exercise and reminiscence
17 +* Music bingo
18 +* Robot becomes point of discussion & conversation
19 +* Used NAO robot
20 +* One participant being negative towards the robot can influence the rest.
21 +* Caretaker stresses that caretaker interference is needed for PwD to keep interacting with robot.
22 +* Ppl had trouble following movemenents sometimes.
23 +* Remenicense exercise made PwD active.
24 +* One participant scared of robot when it talked after being quiet for some time.
25 +* Caretaker states robot's main purpose should be conversational interaction, not exercise.
26 +* Robot should have less monotonic voice.
27 +* Ppl remembered robot but not the music/singing/dancing.
28 +* Ppl respond more to music than engage in talking
29 +* Not clear if positive effect on people's state.
30 +* Potentially, inviting to dance better effect than structured exercise.
31 +* Positive effect on cognitive activity.
32 +* Robot itself not perse positive effect on social interaction, but music does.
33 +* Over course of sessions, ppl interacted less with robot and more with each other. If not like robot from start ~-~-> stopped with study. Other ppl displayed continuously high interest levels.