Skip to Content

Wiki source code of Clemente

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/11 16:33
Show last authors
1 **Week 1**
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.
4
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.
6
7
8 **Week 2**
9
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.
11
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.
13
14
15 **Week 3**
16
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.
18
19
20 **Week 4**
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.
23
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.
25
26
27 **Week 5**
28
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.
30
31
32 **Week 6**
33
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.
35
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.
37
38
39 **Week 7**
40
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.
42
43
44 **week 8**
45
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.
47
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.