Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Clemente van der Aa on 2023/04/08 17:42
From version 7.1
edited by Mohamed Elsayed
on 2023/03/28 15:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 9.1
edited by Rick Dekker
on 2023/04/05 11:35
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -XWiki.MohamedElsayed
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Content
... ... @@ -5,12 +5,12 @@
5 5  
6 6  **Method:**
7 7  
8 -The prototype was evaluated through an in-person experiment involving multiple participants. Since we cannot conduct the experiment with real PwD, fellow students who are also taking the course were recruited as participants. All data collected will be anonymized to maintain confidentiality.
8 +The prototype was evaluated through an in-person experiment involving multiple participants. Since we cannot conduct the experiment with real PwD, fellow students who are also taking the course and others were recruited as participants. All data collected will be anonymized to maintain confidentiality.
9 9  
10 10  
11 11  **Experimental Design:**
12 12  
13 -We used a within-subject design in which all participants interacted with both versions of the robot. Half of the participants interacted with version 1 first and then version 2, while the other half did the opposite. This was done to counter-balance the carryover effects.
13 +We used a within-subject design in which all participants interacted with the robot.
14 14  
15 15  
16 16  **Tasks:**
... ... @@ -20,9 +20,24 @@
20 20  
21 21  **Measures:**
22 22  
23 -Trustworthiness, the effect on the mood of the participant, and the functionalities were measured using a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of sub-questions related to these aspects and used the Likert Scale to capture the level of agreement and feelings towards these aspects.
23 +A trust score, as described in Gutalli et al. (2019) (% style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant: normal; white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: 400; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none" %)//(Design, dev//(% style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant: normal; white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: 400; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none" %)//elop//(% style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant: normal; white-space: pre-wrap; font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: 400; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none; font-style: italic; text-decoration: none" %)//ment 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 +//Trust Score~://
27 +
28 +[[image:attach:Screenshot.png]]
29 +
30 +According to Gulati et al. (2019), the trust people have in robots consist of 4 different factors:
31 +
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.
33 +
34 +//2) The Benevolence of the Robot: //This score shows how much people think a robot will act in their best interests.
35 +
36 +//3) The Competence of the Robot: //This shows how well people think the robot is fit for its job.
37 +
38 +//4) The Reciprocity of the Robot: //The Reciprocity score indicates how much people feel a connection with the robot.
39 +
40 +
26 26  **Procedure:**
27 27  
28 28  The procedure was conducted as follows:
... ... @@ -39,8 +39,6 @@
39 39  Two main materials were used in this study. First, a consent form was used to ensure that participants were willing to participate, and their privacy was protected. Second, the Dogg0 robot was used to evaluate its effectiveness. The robot was programmed using MiroCloud and had the same behavior for every participant.
40 40  
41 41  
42 -
43 -
44 44  = 3. Results =
45 45  
46 46  
Screenshot (49).png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +34.1 KB
Content
Screenshot.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +34.1 KB
Content
afbeelding.png
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +XWiki.RickDekker
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +56.8 KB
Content