Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/08 17:42
From version 24.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/07 11:32
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
... ... @@ -64,16 +64,16 @@
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" 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//
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  
71 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.
72 72  
73 -|[[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//|(((
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 74  [[image:attach:Picture20.png||height="378" width="630"]]//Figure 5: Benevolence assesment//
75 75  )))
76 -|[[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:attach:Picture12.png]]// //Figure 7: Reciprocity assesment//
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//
77 77  
78 78  [[image:attach:Picture19.png]]Figure 8: Mood assesment of Dogg0
79 79  
... ... @@ -122,6 +122,10 @@
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 =
126 126  
127 127  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.