Changes for page b. Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
• Attachments (1 modified, 2 added, 0 removed)
  • afbeelding.png
  • Picture132.png
  • Picture1323.png

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
64	64
65	65	The experiment was conducted on 10 participants. It yielded the following results:
66	66
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:/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:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture15.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture15.png"]][[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//
	67	+|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture16.png?rev=1.2||alt="Picture16.png" height="761" width="1286"]]//[[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="576" width="397"]]//[[image:attach:Picture15.png]]// //Figure 3: Average Trust in Dogg0//
68	68
69	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).
70	70
...	...	@@ -84,19 +84,48 @@
84	84	Figure 9: Mood assesment of Dogg0 per question
85	85
86	86
	87	+Calculating the //Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient //for the mood scores and trust scores per participant gives us a correlation of 0.82, meaning both scores are strongly correlated. This indicates that if a participant enjoyed their interaction with Dogg0, they also trusted Dogg0 more or vice versa.
	88	+
87	87	= 4. Discussion =
88	88
89	89	//Small Test Population//
90	90
91		-Dogg0's trust score tells us accurately how much people trusted Dogg0 and is based on literature. It gives us insight in the factors that reduced the trust in Dogg0 and does a nice job at that. Our test population of 10 however is way too little to accurately draw conclusions about our experiment. If we were to repeat our experiment in the future, we would like to have a bigger test population to have some significant results
	93	+Dogg0's trust score tells us accurately how much people trusted Dogg0 and is based on literature. It gives us insight in the factors that reduced the trust in Dogg0 and does a nice job at that. Our test population of 10 however is way too little to accurately draw conclusions about our experiment. If we were to repeat our experiment in the future, we would like to have a bigger test population to have significant results.
92	92
93	93	//Mood Score before/after//
94	94
	97	+We used questions inspired by the Oxford Happiness Questionnaire to determine if interacting with Dogg0 made participants happy or not. While this did give us some useful insights in how participants valued the interaction with Dogg0, this did not actually tell us anything about their change in mood. It would have been better to asses participants' mood before the experiment and after the experiment, to see how Dogg0 changed their mood short term. Even better would be to asses their mood again after a longer period, to see if interacting with Dogg0 had longer term effects on mood.
	98	+
95	95	//Experiment instruction//
96	96
97		-Suprisingly it did not seem to affect the average mood, as can be seen in the figure below.
	101	+We started giving only minimal instructions for participants interacting with Dogg0, as we expected Dogg0 to trigger some intuitive interaction. However as we noticed that participants seemed confused about what to do in the interaction, we started giving more detailed instructions. Suprisingly this did not seem to affect the average mood or trust, as can be seen in the figure below.
98	98
	103	+|(((
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+[[image:attach:Picture132.png||height="437" width="678"]]Figure 10: Trust Score per participant
	107	+)))|(((
	108	+[[image:attach:Picture1323.png||height="638" width="986"]]
	109	+
	110	+Figure 11: Mood Score per participant
	111	+)))
	112	+
99	99	//MiroCode//
100	100
	115	+MiroCode was used to program the robot, this however did not provide a great degree of control and the robot movements often looked finnicky and unreactive. This may very well have been the reason that participants felt like they had to be cautious around Dogg0. and that people  did not think they could depend on it completely. To improve the reactiveness and functionality of Dogg0, ROS could be used instead of MiroCode.
101	101
	117	+//Dementia patients//
	118	+
	119	+This experiment was done on fit college students, not on elderly dementia patients. In that sense it does give an indication of how enjoyable the interaction with Dogg0 is, but does not per se mean that elderly dementia patients will feel the same about it. A good evaluation of Dogg0 would evaluate it on the actual target audience.
	120	+
	121	+//Better Sensors and Actuators//
	122	+
	123	+Dogg0 had numerous sensing problems. Often it would consider its' own movement as a clap, touch sensors would activate when certain movements were made and black or grey floor was percieved as a cliff. These sensing problems resulted in us having to tune down the reactiveness of Dogg0 for the experiment and work around the sensor issues. Overall this may have made the interaction less enjoyable and natural.
	124	+
102	102	= 5. Conclusions =
	126	+
	127	+The average trust in Dogg0 was 3.2, so slightly positive. Participants were neutral about the benevolence and reciprocity of Dogg0, but were positive its competence and did not percieve it as a risk.
	128	+
	129	+Participants on average also slightly enjoyed their interaction with Dogg0 (3.3). A correlation was found between the trust score per participant and the mood score per participant, which might indicate that participants who trusted Dogg0 more, also enjoyed the interaction more, or that people who enjoyed the interaction more, also trusted Dogg0 more.
	130	+
	131	+Overall this experiment was done with too little participants and was conducted on students. To draw any significant conclusions on the evaluation of Dogg0, it should be done with more participants of the correct target group.

afbeelding.png

Size

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-19.0 KB
	1	+34.4 KB

Content

Picture132.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XWiki.RickDekker

Size

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+100.6 KB

Content

Picture1323.png

Author

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+XWiki.RickDekker

Size

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+105.9 KB

Content