Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/08 17:42
From version 21.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/06 23:23
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 15.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/05 12:33
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 1-5 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 Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
24 24  
25 25  
26 26  //Trust Score~://
... ... @@ -27,9 +27,6 @@
27 27  
28 28  [[image:attach:Screenshot.png]]
29 29  
30 -Figure 1: Factors for Human Robot Trust
31 -
32 -
33 33  According to Gulati et al. (2019), the trust people have in robots consist of 4 different factors:
34 34  
35 35  //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.
... ... @@ -64,62 +64,14 @@
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:/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:/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//
68 68  
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).
65 +[[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/UHfBKbcuV-N5vBik0NXHqTlBCKb9mKQNTPPwkPb5orJ4hnmNIeFy9Al44VzeEc2CeMC8ueLZVP5Qk3hjTm8w9XvuMIuebBi7wZDfPmMsHjjaPMEXZB5gFrwv6ZGquMFNYjaK6ai2IRQJ-44=s2048||height="364px;" width="638px;"]]
70 70  
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.
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.
72 72  
73 -|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture14.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture14.png"]][[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture14.png?rev=1.1||alt="Picture14.png"]]//[[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//
69 +[[image:afbeelding.png]]
77 77  
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 (Figure 8). 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). Below (Figure 9) the individual questions are shown with their respective scores. Noteworthy is that on average most participants didn't feel like they had accomplished something and that they weren't really stimulated to be active. On average participants did feel slightly less safe with Dogg0 (2.9), the reason for this might be the same as why people felt like they had to be more cautious when using Dogg0 in the trust assesment. Positive however is that participants found the interaction amusing, enjoyable and that it made them happy. On average they also felt like doing it again.
81 -
82 -[[image:attach:Picture22.png]]
83 -
84 -Figure 9: Mood assesment of Dogg0 per question
85 -
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 -
89 89  = 4. Discussion =
90 90  
91 -//Small Test Population//
92 92  
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.
94 -
95 -//Mood Score before/after//
96 -
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 -
99 -//Experiment instruction//
100 -
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.
102 -
103 -|(((
104 -[[image:afbeelding.png||height="646" width="1003"]]
105 -
106 -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 -
113 -//MiroCode//
114 -
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.
116 -
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 -
125 125  = 5. Conclusions =
Picture1.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -121.5 KB
Content
Picture10.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -91.7 KB
Content
Picture11.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -96.0 KB
Content
Picture12.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -87.7 KB
Content
Picture13.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -92.5 KB
Content
Picture1323.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -105.9 KB
Content
Picture14.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -79.5 KB
Content
Picture15.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -24.5 KB
Content
Picture16.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -124.3 KB
Content
Picture17.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -100.9 KB
Content
Picture19.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -58.4 KB
Content
Picture2.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -80.0 KB
Content
Picture20.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -92.5 KB
Content
Picture21.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -461.0 KB
Content
Picture22.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -462.9 KB
Content
Picture3.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -24.3 KB
Content
Picture5.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -124.5 KB
Content
Picture7.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -24.8 KB
Content
Picture9.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -24.8 KB
Content
afbeelding.png
Size
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -34.4 KB
1 +14.1 KB
Content