Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Demi Breen on 2023/04/09 15:10
From version 51.1
edited by Maya Elasmar
on 2023/04/07 13:47
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 53.1
edited by Maya Elasmar
on 2023/04/07 14:52
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -135,9 +135,9 @@
135 135  
136 136  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.
137 137  
138 -- 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.
138 +In total during all of the evaluations performed, only one participant went into the Bob persona fully, which was described for the participant in the orientation script. He mentioned that the "no" he was giving during the test was more attention-seeking than a real no to the walk, which is a very useful observation.
139 139  
140 -- Add that sometimes the robot cut participants off, if they were speaking slower or elaborating on their answers.
140 +In a couple of the evaluations, it happened that the robot cut participants off mid-sentence once it had recognized a word that was spoken if they were speaking slower or elaborating on their answers. This is not ideal for a future and complete design and definitely would be something that needs to be worked on.
141 141  
142 142  
143 143  
... ... @@ -169,6 +169,7 @@
169 169  **ADD FUTURE WORK**
170 170  
171 171  
172 +
172 172  = 5. Conclusions =
173 173  
174 174  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.