Skip to Content

Wiki source code of b. Test

Version 49.1 by Demi Breen on 2023/04/07 12:10
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 Thus our research question is:
6 **What is the effect of goal-based and emotion-based explanations in prompting PwD for physical activity?**
7
8
9 The claims that need to be tested are thus:
10
11 - 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.
12
13 - 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
14
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
17 = 2. Method =
18
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.
20
21 == 2.1 Participants ==
22
23 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.
24
25 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.
26
27 == 2.2 Experimental design ==
28
29 **Methodological set-up:**
30
31 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]].
32
33 **Conditions**:
34
35 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.
36
37 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.
38
39 **Subject design:**
40
41 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.
42
43 == 2.3 Tasks ==
44
45 The participant is expected to experiment according to the following plan:
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
56
57 == 2.4 Measures ==
58
59 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.
60
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
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.
64
65 The questionnaire measures the experiment of the interaction of the students with the robot. By that we mean it measures:
66
67 - the usability of the robot
68
69 - the enjoyment of communicating with the robot
70
71 - the usefulness of the robot
72
73 - the humanization of the robot, how much does the robot feel like a real person
74
75 - the trustiness of the robot
76
77 - the convenience of the reasons provided by the robots.
78
79
80 == 2.5 Procedure ==
81
82 The claims that need to be tested are thus:
83
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.
85
86 - 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
87
88 - Whether there is a noticeable difference between emotion-based and goal-based; The PwD can communicate how he/she feels and score the walk.
89
90
91 The robot and students need to perform the following tasks:
92
93 ~1. Pepper will be turned on and will scan/check his environment
94
95 2. Pepper will look for a face and will turn to the person that he sees
96
97 3. Pepper will recognize a face and will introduce itself to the student
98
99 4. Pepper will then ask to go for a walk after which the student can either say yes or no
100
101 5. Pepper will start motivating based on the answer that the student gives:
102
103 5.1 When the student says yes, Pepper will start walking with the student and during the walk will have some small talk
104 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
105 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
106 6. After the walk/activity is finished Pepper will thank the student and will state again how important it is to stay active
107
108 7. Then the student is asked to answer some questions to evaluate the experience.
109
110 == 2.6 Material ==
111
112 The material needed for this experiment is of course the Pepper robot. We also need a laptop to run the robot.
113
114 = 3. Results =
115
116 === Noteworthy answers ===
117
118 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.
119
120 === ANOVA ===
121
122 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.
123
124 Even though the average rejections were higher for emotion-based (0,875) than for goal-based(0,125). This difference was not significant.
125
126 Furthermore, there was no significant difference in any of the questionnaire answers between the two groups.
127
128 [[This table>>doc:.p-values.WebHome]] shows the p-value per measure.
129
130 === Observations ===
131
132 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 badly performing speech recognition system and stated that it might be useful to start by asking how the participant feels.
133
134 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.
135
136 When participants were standing too close to the robot, it wouldn't walk. This happened numerous times, resulting in conversation without walking.
137
138 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.
139 \\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".  This indicated that some participants already had a plan of how many times they would reject the robot before starting, and did not really listen to the persuasions made.
140
141 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.
142
143 - 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.
144
145 - Add that sometimes the robot cut participants off, if they were speaking slower or elaborating on their answer.
146
147
148
149 = 4. Discussion =
150
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
173
174 **ADD FUTURE WORK**
175
176
177 = 5. Conclusions =
178
179 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.
180
181
182 == References ==
183
184 [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]]
185
186 [2] M. Heerink, B. Kröse, V. Evers, and B. Wielinga, “Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit .” [Online]. Available: https:~/~/mheerink.home.xs4all.nl/pdf/HeerinkRo-man09.pdf.
187
188 [3] Thorsten Thadewald and Herbert Büning. “Jarque–Bera test and its competitors for testing
189 normality–a power comparison”. In: Journal of applied statistics 34.1 (2007), pp. 87–105.
190
191 [4] Nadim Nachar et al. “The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two indepen-
192 dent samples come from the same distribution”. In: Tutorials in quantitative Methods for
193 Psychology 4.1 (2008), pp. 13–20.
194
195 [5] Tae Kyun Kim. “T test as a parametric statistic”. In: Korean journal of anesthesiology 68.6
196 (2015), pp. 540–546.
197
198
199