Changes for page b. Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -45,11 +45,11 @@
45	45	The participant is expected to experiment according to the following plan:
46	46
47	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
	48	+* Step 2: The participant needs to read the context information and step into the shoes of Bob
49	49	* Step 3:The participant needs to stand close enough to the robot to have an interaction/conversation with Pepper
50	50	* Step 4: The participant needs to look the robot in the eye
51	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
	52	+* Step 6: When the participant has been motivated to go on a walk he/she needs to walk for 4 meters with the robot
53	53	* Step 7: During the walk, the participant is expected to contribute in some small talk with Pepper
54	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	55	* Step 9: After the experiment, the participant needs to fill in the questionnaire provided by Group 4
...	...	@@ -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).pdf>>attach:Questionnaire (2).pdf]]. 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.
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
...	...	@@ -87,9 +87,9 @@
87	87
88	88	~1. Pepper will be turned on and will scan/check his environment
89	89
90		-2. Pepper will look for a face and will turn to the person that he sees
	90	+2. Pepper wil look straight up, as if it is looking at the participant's face.
91	91
92		-3. Pepper will recognize a face and will introduce itself to the student
	92	+3. Pepper will say hi to the participant.
93	93
94	94	4. Pepper will then ask to go for a walk after which the student can either say yes or no
95	95
...	...	@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@
145	145
146	146	In terms of the research question, no significant differences were found between the two different motivational methods. This is however very likely influenced by the circumstances surrounding the design and the evaluation. The design is unfortunately 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. Things such as elaborating, which would be something that would be a natural part of a leisurely conversation were made very difficult as the robot could not comprehend conversation to the fullest extent.  Since participants were also prompted to give shorter answers and try to keep to things like "yes" and "no" it greatly influenced how participants interacted with the robot.
147	147
148		-There were also other constraints to the interaction, which had to be given as instructions to the participant before testing. These things included at what distance to stay from the robot, when to join the robot's side when it's time for the walk, 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. Ideally, an individual would be able to join the robot's side at any given moment and the robot's movement would not be impacted by the fact that the participant stands too close. Further, one component that has a very significant effect on the results was that it was 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, but it is difficult to simulate conditions of dementia. Only one participant ended up embodying this character to the fullest extent which was very valuable for the sake of the evaluation but was not enough to explore the concept entirely.
	148	+There were also other constraints to the interaction, which had to be given as instructions to the participant before testing. These things included at what distance to stay from the robot, when to join the robot's side when it's time for the walk, how long to wait to speak after a certain prompt, and when to repeat themselves. This further made it unnatural but was necessary for the system to perform properly. Ideally, an individual would be able to join the robot's side at any given moment and the robot's movement would not be impacted by the fact that the participant stands too close. Further, one component that has a very significant effect on the results was that it was 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, but it is difficult to simulate conditions of dementia. Only one participant ended up embodying this character to the fullest extent which was very valuable for the sake of the evaluation but was not enough to explore the concept entirely.
149	149
150	150	This highlights the fact that the 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 which could make us 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 prior to the evaluation, based on their own experiences of working with the robot, perhaps some mistakes or issues went undetected. For example, a completely inexperienced user could potentially show other faults in the design that appear only if the system is entirely foreign to the user, which is likely what it would be like with a PwD. 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 for that reason also.
151	151