Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/08 17:42
From version 15.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/05 12:33
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 18.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/05 22:36
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@
20 20  
21 21  **Measures:**
22 22  
23 -A trust score, as described in Gutalli et al. (2019) //(Design, development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale)//, the effect on the mood of the participant was measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used a Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
23 +A trust score, as described in Gutalli et al. (2019) //(Design, development and evaluation of a human-computer trust scale)//, the effect on the mood of the participant was measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used a 1-5 Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
24 24  
25 25  
26 26  //Trust Score~://
... ... @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
27 27  
28 28  [[image:attach:Screenshot.png]]
29 29  
30 +Figure 1: Factors for Human Robot Trust
31 +
32 +
30 30  According to Gulati et al. (2019), the trust people have in robots consist of 4 different factors:
31 31  
32 32  //1) The Percieved Risk of the Robot~:// This indicates how cautious people feel they have to be around the robot, or how risky they feel it is to interact with the robot. This score inverted shows how much people trust a robot.
... ... @@ -61,13 +61,23 @@
61 61  
62 62  The experiment was conducted on 10 participants. It yielded the following results:
63 63  
67 +|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture16.png?rev=1.2||alt="Picture16.png"]][[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture16.png?rev=1.2||alt="Picture16.png"]]//[[image:attach:Picture16.png]] Figure 2: Trust Assesment of Dogg0//|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture15.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture15.png" height="887" width="612"]][[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture15.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture15.png"]]//[[image:attach:Picture15.png]]// //Figure 3: Average Trust in Dogg0//
64 64  
65 -[[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/UHfBKbcuV-N5vBik0NXHqTlBCKb9mKQNTPPwkPb5orJ4hnmNIeFy9Al44VzeEc2CeMC8ueLZVP5Qk3hjTm8w9XvuMIuebBi7wZDfPmMsHjjaPMEXZB5gFrwv6ZGquMFNYjaK6ai2IRQJ-44=s2048||height="364px;" width="638px;"]]
69 +Figure 2 shows the trust participants had in Dogg0. The height of the bar denotes the mean Likert score for the experiment. The error bars show the standard deviation of the score. Participants view Dogg0 as more than average competent (3.4) and percieved Dogg0 as not risky (3.6). Reciprocity and Benevolence both scored about a 3 on the Likert scale, which means that people did neither agree nor disagree that it was very Benevolent or Reciprocal. The final results show that on average (Figure 3) participants did trust Dogg0 a little bit (3.6).
66 66  
67 -The above figure shows the trust participants had in Dogg0. The height of the bar denoted the mean score for the experiment. The error bars show the standard deviation of the score. One the one hand participants view Dogg0 as very competent (3.4), meaning they think it does exactly what it's meant to do. On the other hand they do think it's risky to interact with Dogg0. Closer inspection of the results reveals that participants mostly felt like they had to be cautious around Dogg0, as this factor scored a mean of 3.3, while other factors were all rated low risk.
71 +The figures below show the individual responses per trust factor. Note that Risk Perception is not yet inverted here, to reflect the questionnaire better. Interesting was that for the competency assesment people overall did not think that the robot had all the functions they expected from a social companion robot. This might have to do with the limitations of programming in MiroCode, but could also point to a more structural problem with our design. On the other hand, participants were overall very positive that the robot could keep them good company as questions like "I think that the robot is effective in keeping me company" and "I can always rely on Dogg0 for keeping me company" were rated very high. Participants did feel like they had to be slightly cautious around Dogg0 (Figure 4), which again might have to do with the limitations of MiroCode.
68 68  
69 -[[image:afbeelding.png]]
73 +|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture14.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture14.png" height="357" width="560"]]//[[image:attach:Picture14.png]]// //Figure 4: Risk Perception of Dogg0//|(((
74 +[[image:attach:Picture20.png||height="378" width="630"]]//Figure 5: Benevolence assesment//
75 +)))
76 +|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture17.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture17.png"]][[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture17.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture17.png"]]//[[image:attach:Picture17.png]]// //Figure 6: Competency assesment//|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture12.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture12.png"]][[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture12.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture12.png"]]//[[image:attach:Picture12.png]]// //Figure 7: Reciprocity assesment//
70 70  
78 +[[image:attach:Picture19.png]]Figure 8: Mood assesment of Dogg0
79 +
80 +Above the results of the mood assesment after using Dogg0 are shown. On average participants report a slightly positive mood after their interaction with Dogg0. Some participants report a slightly negative mood after their interaction (2.4), and some participants really enjoyed their interaction (4.8)
81 +
82 +
83 +
71 71  = 4. Discussion =
72 72  
73 73  
afbeelding.png
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -14.1 KB
1 +19.0 KB
Content
Picture1.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +121.5 KB
Content
Picture10.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +91.7 KB
Content
Picture11.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +96.0 KB
Content
Picture12.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +87.7 KB
Content
Picture13.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +92.5 KB
Content
Picture14.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +79.5 KB
Content
Picture15.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24.5 KB
Content
Picture16.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +124.3 KB
Content
Picture17.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +100.9 KB
Content
Picture19.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +58.4 KB
Content
Picture2.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +80.0 KB
Content
Picture20.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +92.5 KB
Content
Picture3.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24.3 KB
Content
Picture5.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +124.5 KB
Content
Picture7.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24.8 KB
Content
Picture9.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24.8 KB
Content