Changes for page b. Test

Summary

• Page properties (2 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-XWiki.hjpvandijk
	1	+XWiki.MayaElasmar

Content

...	...	@@ -137,11 +137,37 @@
137	137
138	138	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.
139	139
	140	+- Mention something about only one participant going into Bob's character fully? And that he mentioned that the "no" he was giving was more attention-seeking than a real no.
140	140
	142	+- Add that sometimes the robot cut participants off, if they were speaking slower or elaborating on their answer.
141	141
	144	+
	145	+
142	142	= 4. Discussion =
143	143
	148	+- In terms of research question, no significant differences were found. It could be that this is true in general, but it is very likely that this is influenced by the circumstances surrounding the design and the evaluation.
144	144
	150	+- The design is rather limited and with limited capabilities, due to time constraints. Speech recognition didn't always work properly and were not as flexible as desired which makes the interactions less realistic for the participant.
	151	+
	152	+- There are also other constraints to the interaction, which has to be given as instructions to the participant before testing, such as at what distance to stay from the robot, when to join the robots side, how long to wait to speak after a certain prompt, etc. This further made it unnatural, but was necessary for the system to perform properly.
	153	+
	154	+- Since participants were also prompted to give shorter answers and try to keep to things like "yes" and "no" it greatly influenced the way participants interacted with the robot.
	155	+
	156	+- Further, it was (obviously) not possible to test the design with PwD. This was attempted to be resolved by providing a persona description for participants to keep in mind during the testing. Only one participant ended up embodying this character.
	157	+
	158	+- Results may have been different if participants outside of the course were used, since we are all very familiar with these robots and systems. On one hand it could be positive, since we have all researched dementia and have gained a lot of knowledge within this we could be better at simulating appropriate behavior with the robot or testing the systems in a reasonable way. But since participants also have an idea of how the robot works perhaps some mistakes or issues went undetected which could have appeared with individuals that are not familiar with the robot. Of course knowing about dementia is not the same thing as actually suffering from the diagnosis, so many aspects have most likely gone undetected there.
	159	+
	160	+- Results could also be influences by the sheer amount of participants, which concluded at 8 participants per group (8 for the goal-oriented approach, and 8 for the emotional approach). Perhaps with more participants the results would differ to a greater extent between the two approaches. Due to time constraints it was not possible to include more participants.
	161	+
	162	+- Further participants who started the interaction with a pre-disposed idea of what they wanted to do, like the participant mentioned above in the results section, definitely influenced the outcome, since this was no longer about listening to the prompts the robot was giving.
	163	+
	164	+- Interesting to consider is if participants are perhaps inclined to be positive, or feel like they need to be in such a project evaluation and if ideas like these also ended up affecting the outcome. ?
	165	+
	166	+- Normally, a robot should really take a walk outside. It should have been tested how a robot will do in actual garden, totally another surface then the room we did the experiment. Unfortunately, we could not do that, because we are not allowed to move th robot from the room.
	167	+
	168	+- In future studies the amount of participants should be considered, as well as testing the design on PwD. Further improvements to the speech recognition are needed, as well as the smoothness of the walking and the distances travelled and the aspect of the participant's distance to the robot. Perhaps if the less realistic aspects discussed above are minimized, a robot that feels more realistic would result in participants listening to the actual prompts given, rather than going into the experiment with a predisposed idea of what they are going to do or answer and would also perhaps deter the participants from tending to reply positively.
	169	+
	170	+
145	145	= 5. Conclusions =
146	146
147	147	Both systems were deemed enjoyable and fascinating, and little rejections were made to both types of persuasions. No significant difference was found in any of the measures between the two groups.