Changes for page Hugo

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,33 +1,18 @@
1		-Notes paper 2 week 3.2
2		-The Design and Evaluation of a Robotic e-Partner
3		-Engaging People with Dementia in Joint Activities
4		-with Music
5		-Mark A. Neerincx · Ismini Psychoula ·
6		-Marieke M. M. Peeters · Bernd Kreynen ·
7		-Catharine Oertel
	1	+Personal reflection:
8	8
9		-* . Additionally, Chang et al. [11] tested the Paro robot in a nursing home in an 8-weeks trial and observed an increased willingness amongst participants to interact with the robot.
10		-* Paro was evaluated more positively, whereas the Guide robot could be improved in terms of making it more simple and improving its ergonomics
11		-* Hebesberger et al. [16] investigated the use of a robot as a walking group as-
12		-sistant at a care site accompanying adults with advanced dementia. The robot
13		-offered visual and acoustic stimulation. The findings suggested that a robot has
14		-the potential to enhance motivation, group coherence, and also mood within the
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.
	3	+When assigning roles for the group members the others proposed me as team leader. I think this fits me well and I happily accepted the role.
	4	+
	5	+When deciding on the direction of our research we landed quite soon on a sort of guidance robot for PwD to go outside. We initially thought it would be nice for the robot to manage the safety of the route, including traffic monitoring, however we got the comment that this might be too futuristic. Hence we changed it to a motivator to have PwD go for a walk in the garden and be a social companion and route guide during.
	6	+
	7	+I like the aspect of having to closely think about your user group and the iterative process of designing for your users.
	8	+
	9	+(8/3) I think we have a solid idea of what we want to do. Now we have to get familiar with the robot interface and design the interaction and system.
	10	+
	11	+
	12	+(14/3) Read up on goal vs emotion in XAI. It seems like what we are doing (researching effect on goal vs emotion based XAI for PwD) has not been done before, so it is cool to be researching something new. The others in the team also got working with the Pepper robot today, really cool!
	13	+
	14	+(26/3) This week we got our prototype working. We initially started in portal.robotsindeklas. However, the robot wouldn't walk through this interface and the program wouldn't run often. We then tried Choregraphe, which gave quite some errors on speech recognition. This caused the others in my group to spend quite some time to fix this. Eventually I fixed it after some googling and having to manually change the scripts of the blocks in Choreographe. A bit finicky but I'm happy it works now. Next week onto doing our pilot evaluation and then the actual evaluation.
	15	+
	16	+I understand the point of working in Xwiki, however we all don't seem to like the format. I get that doing everything in Xwiki shows the progress of the project better then in a report, but I think re-evaluating the 'report' of this course would be beneficial.
	17	+
	18	+Furthermore I think we are a solid group and put in good effort into the project. I, as group leader, spend some time here and there to distribute some tasks and make sure things are done in time. However, everyone does a lot on their own initiative as well, which is great. Everyone is willing to spend the time to make a great final result.