Changes for page Hugo

Last modified by Hugo van Dijk on 2023/04/10 15:20

From version 3.1

edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/02/22 13:27

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

To version 2.1

edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/02/22 11:53

Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Page properties

Content

@@ -13,21 +13,3 @@
  offered visual and acoustic stimulation. The findings suggested that a robot has
  the potential to enhance motivation, group coherence, and also mood within the
  walking group
--* For exercise and reminiscence
--* Music bingo
--* Robot becomes point of discussion & conversation
--* Used NAO robot
--* One participant being negative towards the robot can influence the rest.
--* Caretaker stresses that caretaker interference is needed for PwD to keep interacting with robot.
--* Ppl had trouble following movemenents sometimes.
--* Remenicense exercise made PwD active.
--* One participant scared of robot when it talked after being quiet for some time.
--* Caretaker states robot's main purpose should be conversational interaction, not exercise.
--* Robot should have less monotonic voice.
--* Ppl remembered robot but not the music/singing/dancing.
--* Ppl respond more to music than engage in talking
--* Not clear if positive effect on people's state.
--* Potentially, inviting to dance better effect than structured exercise.
--* Positive effect on cognitive activity.
--* Robot itself not perse positive effect on social interaction, but music does.
--* 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.