Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

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

Content

...	...	@@ -116,11 +116,11 @@
116	116
117	117	=== Noteworthy answers ===
118	118
119		-On average, participants only rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary. They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination with the system and the robot were met with ratings between 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average. Finally, to the question of whether they would not have gone for a walk if the robot didn't ask them to, the average answer was 3.8/5. All these answers had a standard deviation of less than 1.
	119	+On average, participants only rejected the robot's persuasion attempts 0.5 times. The participants rated the robot a 2/5 in terms of being scary. They gave a 4/5 for it making life more interesting and it being good to make use of the robot. Questions related to the participant's enjoyment and fascination with the system and the robot were met with ratings between 3.8 and 4.1. The question "I think the staff would like me using the robot" was rated a 4/5 on average. A 2.3/5 was given to the statement "The robot insisted too much to go on a walk". Finally, to the question of whether they would not have gone for a walk if the robot didn't ask them to, the average answer was 3.8/5. All these answers had a standard deviation of less than 1.
120	120
121	121	=== ANOVA ===
122	122
123		-Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers to 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.
	123	+Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [3] was used to check for normality. When the answers to a question weren't normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-Test [4] was used. For normally distributed answers, the T-Test [5] 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.
124	124
125	125	Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
126	126
...	...	@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@
149	149
150	150	= 4. Discussion =
151	151
152		-- 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.
	152	+- In terms of the 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.
153	153
154	154	- 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.
155	155
...	...	@@ -172,6 +172,9 @@
172	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.
173	173
174	174
	175	+**ADD FUTURE WORK**
	176	+
	177	+
175	175	= 5. Conclusions =
176	176
177	177	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.