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 25.1
edited by Clemente van der Aa
on 2023/04/08 17:42
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.RickDekker
1 +XWiki.cvanderaa
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:/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//
67 +|[[image:/xwiki/wiki/sce202306/download/3.%20Evaluation/b.%20Test/WebHome/Picture16.png?rev=1.2||alt="Picture16.png" height="761" width="1286"]][[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="576" width="397"]][[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 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  
... ... @@ -101,9 +101,9 @@
101 101  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.
102 102  
103 103  |(((
104 -[[image:afbeelding.png||height="646" width="1003"]]
104 +
105 105  
106 -Figure 10: Trust Score per participant
106 +[[image:attach:Picture132.png||height="437" width="678"]]Figure 10: Trust Score per participant
107 107  )))|(((
108 108  [[image:attach:Picture1323.png||height="638" width="986"]]
109 109  
... ... @@ -122,4 +122,14 @@
122 122  
123 123  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.
124 124  
125 +Measuring Intuitiveness
126 +
127 +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.
128 +
125 125  = 5. Conclusions =
130 +
131 +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.
132 +
133 +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.
134 +
135 +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.
Picture132.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +100.6 KB
Content