Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -2,6 +2,10 @@
2	2
3	3	For our research, we are looking into the effect of either using goal-based motivation or emotion-based motivation in promoting PwD for physical activity. Two systems will thus be designed; one motivating using emotion-based explanations and the other using goal-based motivation. The product will motivate the PwD to go for a walk in the park stimulating the amount of physical activity. It has been shown that physical activity, an increase in emotional stability and more goal-based activities can increase the mental and physical health of the PwD. Since 70% of the PwD have a lack of motivation, apathy and lack of interest in activities this project could have a great influence on the lives of these people.
4	4
	5	+Thus our research question is:
	6	+**What is the effect of goal-based and emotion-based explanations in prompting PwD for physical activity?**
	7	+
	8	+
5	5	The claims that need to be tested are thus:
6	6
7	7	- The effect of emotion-based motivation; The PwD can comprehend the emotion that is being conveyed and in that way is motivated to contribute to the activity of walking in the garden.
...	...	@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
56	56
57	57	In an optimal scenario where we can test the robot on PwD. We would have measured the number of times a person went out. We would also have measured the effect of the goal and emotion-based motivation on the long-term over the people. Whether it will be less effective over time or not. We would also measure the emotional effect on the caregivers and the functional effect. By the functional effect, we mean whether they indeed have more time to do other tasks or not. It would also have been perfect if we could measure the effect of the walks on the PwD and their health.
58	58
59		-The questionnaire for the feedback is in the attachment (Questionnaire (2)).
	63	+The questionnaire for the feedback is in the attachment (Questionnaire (2)). The questionnaire is based on a questionnaire in the paper " Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit " [5]. There are also 5 question at the end that we added ourselves, because we think it fits our experiment.
60	60
61	61	The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
62	62
...	...	@@ -163,9 +163,11 @@
163	163
164	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	165
166		-- 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.
	170	+- 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	167
	172	+- In future studies the amount of participants should be considered, as well as testing the design on PwD and in a garden. 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.
168	168
	174	+
169	169	= 5. Conclusions =
170	170
171	171	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.
...	...	@@ -178,13 +178,13 @@
178	178	[2] Thorsten Thadewald and Herbert Büning. “Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing
179	179	normality–a power comparison”. In: Journal of applied statistics 34.1 (2007), pp. 87–105.
180	180
181		-
182	182	[3] Nadim Nachar et al. “The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two indepen-
183	183	dent samples come from the same distribution”. In: Tutorials in quantitative Methods for
184	184	Psychology 4.1 (2008), pp. 13–20.
185	185
186		-
187	187	[4] Tae Kyun Kim. “T test as a parametric statistic”. In: Korean journal of anesthesiology 68.6
188	188	(2015), pp. 540–546.
189	189
	194	+[5] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, and B. Wielinga, “Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit .” [Online]. Available: https:~/~/mheerink.home.xs4all.nl/pdf/HeerinkRo-man09.pdf. [Accessed: 03-Apr-2023].
	195	+
190	190