Changes for page Hugo
Last modified by Hugo van Dijk on 2023/04/10 15:20
From version 8.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/04/10 15:20
on 2023/04/10 15:20
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 3.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/02/22 13:27
on 2023/02/22 13:27
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Content
-
... ... @@ -1,27 +1,33 @@ 1 - 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 2 2 3 - Whenassigningrolesforthegroup membersheothersproposedme as teamleader.I thinkthisfits me well andI happilyacceptedthe role.4 - 5 - Whendeciding on thedirection of our research we landed quite soon on a sort ofguidanceobotfor PwD to go outside. We initiallythoughtit would benicefor the robot to manage thesafety of the route,includingtraffic monitoring, howeverwe gotthecomment that thismight betoofuturistic.Hence we changedit toa motivatorto havePwD go fora walkthegarden and be a social companionand route guide during.6 - 7 - I liketheaspect of having to closelythinkaboutyour user group andtheiterative processofdesigningfor your users.8 - 9 - (8/3) I thinkwe have a solid idea of what we want to do. Now we have togetfamiliar with the robot interface and design the interaction and system.10 - 11 - (14/3)Readup on goal vsemotion in XAI. It seems like what we are doing (researchingeffect on goal vs emotionbased XAI for PwD) has not been done before, soit is cool to be researchingsomething new. The others in the team also got working with the Pepper robot today, really cool!12 - 13 - (26/3)Thisweek we got our prototype working. We initially startedinportal.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 Choregraphe. A bit finicky but I'm happy it works now. Next week onto doing our pilot evaluation and then the actual evaluation.14 - 15 - Iunderstand thepointof working in Xwiki. However,we all don'temto like the format.I getthatdoingeverythingin Xwikishowstheprogressofthe projectbetter then in a report,but I think re-evaluating the'report'ofthis course would be beneficial.16 - 17 - Furthermore, I think we are a solid group and put in good effort into the project. I, as group leader, spendsometimehere and there to distributesome tasks andmakesure things are done in time. However,everyone doesaloton their own initiativeas well, which is great.Everyone is willing to spend the time to make a great final result.18 - 19 - Upuntil now I havereallyenjoyedthecourse,andalreadytalkedto Frank about maybedoing my masterthesisonsubjectrelated toassistivesystems.20 - 21 - Theevaluationswent okay. Therobot is quitesensitive when someone is standing close to it. Then it doesn'tmove like it's told to. Also, at least with Choregraphe, it takes like a full secondbeforeit's speech recognition engine kicks in so answering it too fast makes it not hear you. This causedsome frustration and negatively impacted our experiments. Also it's really hard for people to really get into the persona so they didn't act like Bobwould. Also some did notseem motivated at all to do our evaluation. Abit frustratingas we knowthatthatimpacts our finalconclusion. But we still managed. Also, if there would beageneral evaluation day or something organized by thecourse staffitself, it would be easier to get participants and plan the sessions.22 - 23 - It'sa shame that you don'thave that much time to fully work out theprototypeand performproper evaluations. But I think inthe timeframe that we havewedid learn everythingthere was toit andI do understand how I //would// do aproper evaluation. So I think thelength of the courseisfineas itis.24 - 25 - Now,at the endof the course, I stillthink this is the most enjoyable course I'vehad doing this MSc and will definitely think about doing my thesis somewhere in this direction.However, I would personallyenjoy it more if Icould work on some sort of product designnstead of programming anexistingrobot platform. But I'll see what the possibilities are.26 - 27 - 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.