Changes for page b. Test

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Author

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-XWiki.Demibreen1000
	1	+XWiki.hjpvandijk

Content

...	...	@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
14	14
15	15	- Whether there is a noticeable difference between emotion-based and goal-based; The PwD can communicate how he/she feels and score the walk.
16	16
	17	+- The robot is trustworthy and can be given the responsibility of going out with the PwD on its own
	18	+
17	17	= 2. Method =
18	18
19	19	Sadly enough we are not able to experiment on PwD in a real-time situation and over a longer time. The experiment will take place on one single day and thus the long-term effect of either goal-based or emotion-based motivation cannot be seen. However the difference in motivation can still five different results in a single experiment and these results can already show some promising results for further research.
...	...	@@ -44,15 +44,13 @@
44	44
45	45	The participant is expected to experiment according to the following plan:
46	46
47		-* Step 1: The participant needs to fill in the consent form
48		-* Step 2: The participant needs to read the context information en emphasise as Bob
49		-* Step 3:The participant needs to stand close enough to the robot to have an interaction/conversation with Pepper
50		-* Step 4: The participant needs to look the robot in the eye
51		-* Step 5: The participant needs to actively answer the questions provided by Pepper during the experiment
52		-* Step 6: When the participant has been motivated to go on a walk he/she needs to walk for 1 to 2 meters with the robot
53		-* Step 7: During the walk, the participant is expected to contribute in some small talk with Pepper
54		-* Step 8: When the walk is finished the participant needs to communicate with Pepper after which Pepper will say goodbye and the actual experiment is over
55		-* Step 9: After the experiment, the participant needs to fill in the questionnaire provided by Group 4
	49	+* Step 1: The participant needs to stand close enough to the robot to have an interaction/conversation with Pepper
	50	+* Step 2: The participant needs to look the robot in the eye
	51	+* Step 3: The participant needs to actively answer the questions provided by Pepper during the experiment
	52	+* Step 4: When the participant has been motivated to go on a walk he/she needs to walk for 1 to 2 meters with the robot
	53	+* Step 5: During the walk, the participant is expected to contribute in some small talk with Pepper
	54	+* Step 6: When the walk is finished the participant needs to communicate with Pepper after which Pepper will say goodbye and the actual experiment is over
	55	+* Step 7: After the experiment, the participant needs to fill in the questionnaire provided by group 4
56	56
57	57	== 2.4 Measures ==
58	58
...	...	@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
60	60
61	61	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.
62	62
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 " [2]. There are also 5 questions at the end that we added ourselves because we think it fits our experiment.
	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 " [2]. There are also 5 question at the end that we added ourselves, because we think it fits our experiment.
64	64
65	65	The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
66	66
...	...	@@ -74,11 +74,12 @@
74	74
75	75	- the trustiness of the robot
76	76
77		- - the convenience of the reasons provided by the robots.
	77	+ -  the convenience of the reasons provided by the robots.
78	78
79	79
80	80	== 2.5 Procedure ==
81	81
	82	+
82	82	The claims that need to be tested are thus:
83	83
84	84	- 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.
...	...	@@ -150,23 +150,23 @@
150	150
151	151	- 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.
152	152
153		-- The design is rather limited and with limited capabilities, due to time constraints. Speech recognition didn't always work properly and was not as flexible as desired which made the interactions less realistic for the participant.
	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.
154	154
155		-- There are also other constraints to the interaction, which have to be given as instructions to the participant before testing, such as at what distance to stay from the robot, when to join the robot's 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.
	156	+- 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.
156	156
157	157	- 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.
158	158
159	159	- 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.
160	160
161		-- 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 behaviour 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.
	162	+- 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.
162	162
163		-- Results could also be influenced 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.
	164	+- 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.
164	164
165	165	- 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.
166	166
167		-- Interesting to consider 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. ?
	168	+- 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. ?
168	168
169		-- Normally, a robot should really take a walk outside. It should have been tested how a robot will do in an 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.
	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.
170	170
171	171	- 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.
172	172