Skip to Content

Wiki source code of b. Test

Version 28.1 by Hugo van Dijk on 2023/03/30 18:34
Show last authors
1 = 1. Introduction =
2
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
5 The claims that need to be tested are thus:
6
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.
8
9 - The effect of goal-based motivation; The PwD can comprehend the goal and end-state of the promoted activity and in that way is motivated to contribute to the activity of walking in the garden
10
11 - Whether there is a noticeable difference between emotion-based and goal-based; The PwD can communicate how he/she feels and score the walk.
12
13 - The robot is trustworthy and can be given the responsibility of going out with the PwD on its own
14
15 = 2. Method =
16
17 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.
18
19 == 2.1 Participants ==
20
21 The test will be with students from the University of Delft that are also following this course. For the results to be valid 15 participants in a research is the minimum amount as presented by researcher Marc Brysbaert [1]. Since the decision was made for in-between subject design, which will be elaborated more in the Experimental Design section, there are thus 30 participants necessary. Due to the time constraint and the number of students in the course, 30 participants will probably not be reachable for this experiment so fewer students will participate. Also, the use of a control group is not within reach because of the lack of resources.
22
23 The participants are all young and do not have any form of dementia. The results of the research can thus not be seen as sufficient for a real-life implementation of the prototype. The students will be familiar with the robot and thus further explanation of the working of the robot is less relevant. Also, the students will feel more comfortable with the robot from the start. This might be very different to the PwD which might be a little hesitant in interacting with the robot. The integration of that aspect will be of great importance before real implementation.
24
25 == 2.2 Experimental design ==
26
27 **Methodological set-up:**
28
29 Pepper will be turned on and will start a conversation with the participant. It will ask the participant to go on a walk and based on the answer Pepper will go on the walk immediately or will try to motivate the PwD to go on a walk with him. During the walk, Pepper will ask the participant questions to keep the participant engaged and keep continuing on the walk. So for the experiment, a Pepper robot, the Choregraphe software and also freedom of movement are needed. The full step-by-step schedule of the experiment is given in the attachments for both the [[goal-based motivation>>attach:goal-based motivation.pdf]] and the [[emotion-based motivation>>attach:emotion-based motivation.pdf]].
30
31 **Conditions**:
32
33 The interaction will take place in a TU Delft facility. The experiment will be held in the Insyght lab. Unfortunately, the space of the room is small compared to an actual garden. The robot needs some space to move, hence we will make sure to move everything moved out of the way and that other students (who are not experimenting at the moment) wait in the room next. Also, the walk will not be as long as it would be in the actual garden.
34
35 The room also has a different surface than an actual park. However, our experiment focused more on the motivation to go outside than the walk itself. The difference in surrounding, a room instead of a garden, might have a little effect on the experience of the participant. However, the motivation will probably not be affected by the surroundings as much.
36
37 **Subject design:**
38
39 For the experiment it was chosen to do in-between subject design as the learning effect in the within-subject design might negatively impact the results. When the same participants have to perform the same routine twice, they might get bored and frustrated due to some repetitions in questioning in the different motivation methods. In the in-between-subject design, multiple experiments will be taken with different participants. The total group of participants will thus be divided in half regarding either the emotion-based or the goal-based motivation. Both are measured by a questionnaire, which will be discussed in more detail later on in the evaluation part.
40
41 == 2.3 Tasks ==
42
43 The participant is expected to experiment according to the following plan:
44
45 * Step 1: The participant needs to stand close enough to the robot to have an interaction/conversation with Pepper
46 * Step 2: The participant needs to look the robot in the eye
47 * Step 3: The participant needs to actively answer the questions provided by Pepper during the experiment
48 * 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
49 * Step 5: During the walk, the participant is expected to contribute in some small talk with Pepper
50 * 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
51 * Step 7: After the experiment, the participant needs to fill in the questionnaire provided by group 4
52
53 == 2.4 Measures ==
54
55 If our situation, we would like to measure whether the provided motivation indeed affects the person. We would like to compare which one has more effect as well. That could be measured by seeing whether they indeed go on the walk or not. We would also like to measure how long it takes to convince them to go on a walk when they do not want. We would also like to measure their emotions during and after the walk. Did they enjoy it? Were they bored? Did they feel lonely? That could be measured with the feedback asked after the walk.
56
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
59 The questionnaire for the feedback is in the attachment (Questionnaire (2)).
60
61 The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
62
63 - the usability of the robot
64
65 - the enjoyment of communicating with the robot
66
67 - the usefulness of the robot
68
69 - the humanization of the robot, how much does the robot feel like a real person
70
71 - the trustiness of the robot
72
73 -  the convenience of the reasons provided by the robots.
74
75
76 == 2.5 Procedure ==
77
78
79 The claims that need to be tested are thus:
80
81 - 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.
82
83 - The effect of goal-based motivation; The PwD can comprehend the goal and end-state of the promoted activity and in that way is motivated to contribute to the activity of walking in the garden
84
85 - Whether there is a noticeable difference between emotion-based and goal-based; The PwD can communicate how he/she feels and score the walk.
86
87
88 The robot and students need to perform the following tasks:
89
90 ~1. Pepper will be turned on and will scan/check his environment
91
92 2. Pepper will look for a face and will turn to the person that he sees
93
94 3. Pepper will recognize a face and will introduce itself to the student
95
96 4. Pepper will then ask to go for a walk after which the student can either say yes or no
97
98 5. Pepper will start motivating based on the answer that the student gives:
99
100 5.1 When the student says yes, Pepper will start walking with the student and during the walk will have some small talk
101 5.2 When the student says no, Pepper will start the motivational part of the experiment. For the first experiment Pepper will use emotion-based motivation and for the second experiment Pepper will use the goal-based motivation
102 5.3 If the student then decides to say yes, then Pepper will start walking with the student and during the walk will have some small talk
103 6. After the walk/activity is finished Pepper will thank the student and will state again how important it is to stay active
104
105 7. Then the student is asked to answer some questions to evaluate the experience.
106
107 == 2.6 Material ==
108
109 The material needed for this experiment is of course the Pepper robot. We also need a laptop to run the robot.
110
111 = 3. Results =
112
113 Firstly, the Jarque-Bera test [2] was used to check for normality. When the answers for 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.
114
115
116 Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
117
118 Furthermore, there was no significant difference in any of the questionnaire answers between the two groups.
119
120 [[This table>>doc:.p-values.WebHome]] shows the p-value per measure.
121
122
123 When asked the reason that convinced the participant to join the robot on a walk, two out of the six participants that said yes eventually in the emotion-based system recited one of the persuasion subjects. For the goal-based system, this was three out of eight.
124
125 When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened in numerous times, resulting in conversation without walking.
126
127 General remarks made by participants evaluating the emotion-based system were only about the walking aspect of the robot, stating that the walking distance should be increased and the change in direction was quite sharp. Participants doing the goal-based evaluation commented on the lacking speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start with asking how the participant feels.
128
129 Even though it was specified at the start of every session that the participant can say either yes or no to the robot's persuasion attempts, we noticed that some participants did not seem to grasp the fact that they could say no. At the end of their session, one participant stated that he was not persuaded by the robot at all, even though they said yes on the robot's first persuasion attempt.
130 \\Another participant, who said no to all persuasion attempts, stated afterwards that they "Just wanted to see what would happen if I said no all the time".
131
132 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.
133
134
135
136 = 4. Discussion =
137
138
139 = 5. Conclusions =
140
141
142 == References ==
143
144 [1] Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. //Journal of Cognition//, //2//(1), 16. DOI: [[http:~~/~~/doi.org/10.5334/joc.72>>url:http://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72]]
145
146 [2] Thorsten Thadewald and Herbert Büning. “Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing
147 normality–a power comparison”. In: Journal of applied statistics 34.1 (2007), pp. 87–105.
148
149
150 [3] Nadim Nachar et al. “The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two indepen-
151 dent samples come from the same distribution”. In: Tutorials in quantitative Methods for
152 Psychology 4.1 (2008), pp. 13–20.
153
154
155 [4] Tae Kyun Kim. “T test as a parametric statistic”. In: Korean journal of anesthesiology 68.6
156 (2015), pp. 540–546.
157
158