Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 15:10
From version 27.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 18:30
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 29.1
edited by Hugo van Dijk
on 2023/03/30 18:53
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
113 113  Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers for a question weren't normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-Test [3] was used. For normally distributed answers, the T-Test [4] was used. These tests used the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the two groups. When the calculated probability value (p-value) is less than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference between the two groups for the answers to that question.
114 114  
115 115  
116 -Even though the mean rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
116 +Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
117 117  
118 118  Furthermore, there was no significant difference in any of the questionnaire answers between the two groups.
119 119  
... ... @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
127 127  General remarks made by participants evaluating the emotion-based system were only about the walking aspect of the robot, stating that the walking distance should be increased and the change in direction was quite sharp. Participants doing the goal-based evaluation commented on the lacking speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start with asking how the participant feels.
128 128  
129 129  Even though it was specified at the start of every session that the participant can say either yes or no to the robot's persuasion attempts, we noticed that some participants did not seem to grasp the fact that they could say no. At the end of their session, one participant stated that he was not persuaded by the robot at all, even though they said yes on the robot's first persuasion attempt.
130 -\\Another participant, who said no to all persuasion attempts, stated afterwards that they "Just wanted to see what would happen if I said no all the time".
130 +\\Another participant, who said no to all persuasion attempts, stated afterwards that they "Just wanted to see what would happen if I said no all the time".  This indicated that some participants already had a plan of how many times they would reject the robot before starting, and did not really listen to the persuasions made.
131 131  
132 132  As the robot's speech recognition could only understand single words due to its implementation, this resulted in numerous occasions where a participant was not understood and had to repeat themselves. It also occurred that the robot understood 'yes' when 'no' was said.
133 133