Changes for page Clemente

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,207 +1,48 @@
1		-Miro-E
	1	+**Week 1**
2	2
	3	+In the first week we had the introduction of socio-cognitive engineering (SCE). Whereas the focus of the robotics courses I had before was primarily focused on programming, the human-centered design approach of SCE was interesting and refreshing.
3	3
4		-For our evaluation, we decided that that the functionality we want to test, is the ability of the Dogg0 (Miro-E) robot to entertain and interact with the PwD. Dogg0 will be introduced to the PwD in a safe and confined environment, like her room or living room.
	5	+On the second day we made our team for the project, and I liked that we immediately started out with designing the first draft of our story board and could present it to the class. We decided to use the Miro-E for our project because of its emotionally engaging appearance and flexible code platform. We also got introduced to Xwiki and used the rest of the week to write the Quick Start.
5	5
6	6
7		-In the final product, Miro-E needs to have the following capabilities to interact with the PwD:
	8	+**Week 2**
8	8
9		-* Locate the PwD with its camera sensors using a person/ face detector model.
10		-* Interact with the PwD by making friendly noises and movements.
11		-* Engage with the Pwd by reacting to touch with its tactile sensors.
12		-* React to basic voice/ sound commands like “sit”, “sleep” or “go” or clapping your hands.
	10	+In the second week we had the lecture of Rebecca Shaefer, who explored the relationship between the brain, dementia, and music. It was very interesting to learn about the latest advancements in this relatively new field. We made sure to gather all the relevant information about music therapy so that we could incorporate it in our project.
13	13
	12	+The rest of the week we gathered twice to work further on formulating the use case and the effects. To be fair a lot of concepts and the way the way to approach this project was new for me, which made it difficult sometimes but also engaging.
14	14
15		-For our evaluation we decided to focus on one functionality, namely Interacting with the PwD by making friendly noises and movements. For simplification purposes there is assumed that the PwD is the only person in the view of the Miro-E and that there are no obstacles present.
16	16
	15	+**Week 3**
17	17
18		-The MiroCloud environment is used to program an interaction sequence for the Dogg0. This can be modeled as a finite state machine in which the states of the dogg0 are determined by the actions of the PwD. These actions include petting the dogg0, or a sound command (in this case a clap). For every state the dogg0’s behavior is hard-coded to come over as natural and smooth as possible.
	17	+In this week we attended the lecture where we got taught more theory on human factors and design patterns, which we could use to elaborate our Xwiki further. We also took time to do some literature studies to have some more back up for the claims we want to make. I personally found a lot of literature on the subject quite interesting, and the found information and sources helped us further. We also began preparing the presentation for the week after. We decided that Rick and Mees would do the first presentation, and Mohamed and I the second one. I believe we have worked out a decent sketch of the uses cases and design scenario, but could improve in the experiment and evaluation methods.
19	19
20	20
	20	+**Week 4**
21	21
	22	+At the beginning of the week, we had the presentations. It was nice to see the progress of all the other groups as they had worked out different design scenarios for different robots. Our presentation went quite good as well, and we also received constructive feedback on it.
22	22
	24	+On Tuesday we finally got access to the MiroCloud so we could begin the programming part. We had two options, using their MiroCloud which provided an easy-to-use platform but was limited in capabilities. Or to use ROS to connect several Python scripts which would enable to use any imported library. That week we explored these options by trying to figure out how we could implement ROS on the robot.
23	23
24	24
	27	+**Week 5**
25	25
	29	+After doing additional research on implementing ROS on the Miro-E, we concluded that it would cost a lot of time and effort to make it work. Furthermore, after speaking with the professor, it also became apparent that what we were examining with our use case wasn’t that interesting from a SCE perspective. Therefore, we decided to do the experiment on another use case we designed, which focused on the interaction of the PwD and the Miro-E. The rest of the week we spend rewriting the Xwiki on these changes and working out the new experiment.
26	26
27	27
	32	+**Week 6**
28	28
	34	+On Monday, we attended a lecture on inclusive design, which we incorporated into our project while working on the XWiki. We made several changes and improvements to our prototype code, but we faced a setback when the Miro we had was unable to drive in most situations due to its cliff sensors. We spent two days researching and attempting to solve the issue until we found a brighter floor in an emergency hallway that allowed us to conduct our experiment successfully.
29	29
	36	+We also faced some challenges that required us to work together and find solutions. One issue we encountered was getting Miro to work properly on the floor. After initially trying a black floor, which Miro saw as a cliff and would not move forward on, we had to search for a grey floor that would work. Additionally, we had to find a way to measure participants' trust in Dogg0 and the interaction, which led one team member to research and find a useful paper on the topic for our questionnaire.
30	30
31	31
	39	+**Week 7**
32	32
	41	+We conducted the experiment evaluating the user experience of the Miro dog. We encountered issues with the cliff sensors but resolved them and conducted the experiment in another room. We had participants fill out an informed consent form and a Qualtrics survey after the experiment. Throughout the week, we analyzed the results, designed an evaluation form, and created a final presentation. Although the experiment not going as smoothly as expected, I still enjoyed seeing the participants interacting with the robot. From performing the actual experiment, we learned a lot, mostly about what to do better the next time.
33	33
34	34
	44	+**week 8**
35	35
	46	+In the last week we made the final presentation, where we tried to glue everything we made together. I was sometimes a challenge to only include the most relevant parts as we worked so many concepts. We also divided the tasks: Rick focused on examining the results while the others got specific tasks for the presentation and finalizing the Xwiki.
36	36
37		-
38		-
39		-
40		-Introduction
41		-
42		-Section [[Prototype>>url:https://xwiki.ewi.tudelft.nl/xwiki/wiki/rejamexample/view/3.%20Evaluation/a.%20Prototype/]] presented the //socially intelligent// dog-robot Miro-E for the use case " UC02.0: Accompany and entertain the PwD". In this use case the hypothesis is tested that the PwD will feel companionship and lower level of stress due to interactions with the Dogg0. We will test these interactions by assess aspects like Trustworthiness, the effect it has on the mood of the PwD and the functionalities of the Dogg0. These aspects will be measured with a questionnaire that the participants fill in right after the experiment.
43		-
44		-Method
45		-
46		-The prototype was evaluated with an in-person experiment with multiple participants.
47		-
48		-Participants
49		-
50		-Unfortunately, we can’t do the experiment with real PwD, so the participants will be fellow students that also take the course. The data will be anonymized.
51		-
52		-Experimental design
53		-
54		-For the experiment, we used a within-subject design. All of the participants interacted with both versions of the robot, with half of the participants interacting with version 1 first and then version 2, and the other half in reverse order. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects.
55		-
56		-Tasks
57		-
58		-The participants are instructed to interact with the Dogg0, without prior knowledge of all its functionalities.
59		-
60		-Measures
61		-
62		-The trustworthiness, the effect it has on the mood of the participant and the functionalities are being measured. This is done by filling in a questionnaire where these aspects are divided in sub questions. The level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects are captured using the Likert Scale.
63		-
64		-
65		- Procedure
66		-
67		-The procedure was conducted as follows:
68		-
69		-1. Welcome participants and explain what they are going to be doing.
70		-1. Have them sign the permission form.
71		-1. Complete questionnaire 1 regarding their emotional state.
72		-1. Engage with the robot.
73		-1. Complete the questionnaire 2
74		-1. Have a short interview during downtime (prepared questions).
75		-
76		-Material
77		-
78		-1. Consent form. To protect the privacy of participants and ensure the evaluation process goes smoothly, we will ask participants to sign a consent form, indicating they are willing to take part in the evaluation and the data gathered from the experiment will be analyzed by researchers.
79		-1. Miro robot. Our robot is programmed using MiroCloud. The robot will have the same behaviour for every participant. However, the input data will be entered by the Activity Coordinator.
80		-
81		-
82		-
83		-**Introduction**
84		-
85		-
86		-The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a socially intelligent dog-robot, Dogg0, in providing companionship and reducing stress levels for people with dementia (PwD). The study aims to test the hypothesis that the interactions with the robot will improve the mood of the PwD and enhance their trust in the robot. To achieve this, we will measure trustworthiness, the effect on the mood of the PwD, and the functionalities of the robot. These aspects will be assessed using a questionnaire filled out by participants immediately after the experiment.
87		-
88		-
89		-**Method:**
90		-
91		-
92		-The prototype was evaluated through an in-person experiment involving multiple participants. Since we cannot conduct the experiment with real PwD, fellow students who are also taking the course were recruited as participants. All data collected will be anonymized to maintain confidentiality.
93		-
94		-
95		-**Experimental Design:**
96		-
97		-
98		-We used a within-subject design in which all participants interacted with both versions of the robot. Half of the participants interacted with version 1 first and then version 2, while the other half did the opposite. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects.
99		-
100		-
101		-**Tasks:**
102		-
103		-
104		-Participants were instructed to interact with Dogg0 without prior knowledge of all its functionalities. They were free to engage with the robot as they wished.
105		-
106		-
107		-**Measures:**
108		-
109		-
110		-Trustworthiness, the effect on the mood of the participant, and the functionalities were measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used the Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
111		-
112		-
113		-**Procedure:**
114		-
115		-
116		-The procedure was conducted as follows:
117		-
118		-1. Participants were welcomed and informed about the purpose of the study.
119		-1. Participants signed a consent form to indicate their willingness to participate and allow researchers to analyze the data gathered from the experiment.
120		-1. Participants completed the first questionnaire, which assessed their emotional state.
121		-1. Participants interacted with the robot.
122		-1. Participants completed the second questionnaire.
123		-1. Researchers conducted a short interview during downtime, using prepared questions.
124		-
125		-
126		-**Materials:**
127		-
128		-
129		-Two main materials were used in this study. First, a consent form was used to ensure that participants were willing to participate, and their privacy was protected. Second, the Dogg0 robot was used to evaluate its effectiveness. The robot was programmed using MiroCloud and had the same behavior for every participant.
130		-
131		-
132		-
133		-
134		-
135		-
136		-
137		-
138		-
139		-
140		-
141		-
142		-
143		-Discussion, how to redesign the experiment
144		-
145		-
146		-If we had the possibility to do our experiment again there would be a few things we would do differently. Additional to the trust score, it would also be interesting to measure the intuitiveness of the Dogg0 and the effect former instructions had on the mood of the participants.
147		-
148		-
149		-While conducting the experiment we switched from giving no instructions to giving more context and explanation about the functions of Dogg0. We saw a difference between the reactions of the participants to the Dogg0 of the two groups. This observation was merely anecdotal, and it would have been interesting to measure systematically whether giving former instructions or not would affect the mood of the participants. This could potentially give some meaningful results on how intuitive the Dogg0 is, which is one of the objectives.
150		-
151		-
152		-
153		-
154		-**Reflection**
155		-
156		-
157		-
158		-Week 1
159		-
160		-
161		-* In the first week we had the introduction of socio-cognitive engineering (SCE). Whereas the focus of the robotics courses I had before was primarily focused on programming, the human-centered design approach of SCE was interesting and refreshing.
162		-* On the second day we made our team for the project, and I liked that we immediately started out with designing the first draft of our story board and could present it to the class. We decided to use the Miro-E for our project because of its emotionally engaging appearance and flexible code platform. We also got introduced to Xwiki and used the rest of the week to write the Quick Start.
163		-*
164		-*
165		-
166		-Week 2
167		-
168		-* Use case
169		-*
170		-
171		-Week 3
172		-
173		-* Ros week
174		-* Prototype
175		-*
176		-
177		-
178		-Week 4
179		-
180		-* Change of plan
181		-*
182		-
183		-
184		-Week 5
185		-
186		-* Preparation for the experiment
187		-
188		-
189		-Week 6
190		-
191		-* experiment
192		-
193		-
194		-Week 7
195		-
196		-* final presentation
197		-* filmpje editen, discussion
198		-
199		-
200		-week 8
201		-
202		-* final presentation
203		-* finalizing XWiki
204		-
205		-
206		-
207		-
	48	+At the end Mohamed and I did the presentation and Mees and Rick helped answering the questions. I think it went well and the discussion afterwards was also interesting, where we talked more about incorporating the theory of mind in the use case.