Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/04/09 15:23
From version 12.1
edited by William OGrady
on 2024/03/29 11:39
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 16.1
edited by Rixt Hellinga
on 2024/04/01 16:42
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.WilliamOGrady
1 +xwiki:XWiki.RixtHellinga
Content
... ... @@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
2 2  
3 3  This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Nao robot in aiding memory retrieval through the use of a between-subjects design with a test group and a control group. We will simulate conditions of early-stage dementia in student participants to test whether interactions with Nao enhance the retrieval of memories fabricated created by us, mimicking lost memories typical of individuals with dementia.
4 4  
5 -Recall the image from the [[3. Evaluation Methods>>Main.b\. Human Factors.Measuring Instruments.WebHome]] in the [[1. Foundation>>Main.WebHome]] as in the figure below. The first two concepts, that of Autonomy and Relatedness and the memory self-efficacy, will be tested by using validated surveys. The memory recall will be tested by a custom survey that was catered to be used with the robot in the domain of interest, that is of using the NAO as an encyclopedia for recalling familiar people.
5 +Recall the image from the [[3. Evaluation Methods>>Main.b\. Human Factors.Measuring Instruments.WebHome]] as in the figure below. The first two concepts, that of Autonomy and Relatedness and the memory self-efficacy, will be tested by using validated surveys. The memory recall will be tested by a custom survey that was catered to be used with the robot in the domain of interest, that is of using the NAO as an encyclopedia for recalling familiar people.
6 6  
7 -[[image:Main.b\. Human Factors.Measuring Instruments.WebHome@Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1(4).jpg||height="421" width="735"]]
7 +[[image:Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg]]
8 8  
9 9  
10 10  === 2. Method ===
... ... @@ -69,11 +69,22 @@
69 69  
70 70  === 4. Discussion ===
71 71  
72 +**//Participants don't know about points system so they didn't answer with "getting the most points" in mind//**
73 +
72 72  //Ambiguities in the evaluation briefing has led to several aspects in the results that might misrepresent the participants' gathered knowledge. Points were awarded to the participant for certain key descriptors, each family member's role, occupation, likes, dislikes and so on. Of course, this wasn't known to the participant, so they might have omitted descriptors they deemed less important or trivial and therefore scored worse, even though they'd heard and remembered them.//
73 73  
76 +
77 +//**Participants don't know which people or facts are important, so they can get stuck in spots that are unrewarded**//
78 +
74 74  //The choice to create a sprawling, multi-faceted database also had the side-effect of participants finding out a lot of information that was not rewarded by the grading system in any way. For example, the user can ask the robot to elaborate about certain memories or character traits of family members. There are also people in the database that act as ancillary characters and to create a sense of realism to the database, but participants can likely get stuck on learning about them as there is no implied hiearchy of importance to the participant. //
75 75  
76 76  
82 +**//GPT Assistant can elaborate on any question, and therefore the user does not know what belongs to the database, and don't know where to focus//**
83 +
84 +//Another limiation of the evaluation is with the GPT Assistant's ability to consistently elaborate on any question posed by the participant.//
85 +
86 +
87 +
77 77  === 5. Conclusions ===
78 78  
79 79  == //**Ethical Considerations**// ==
Socio-Cognitive Engineering - Frame 1.jpg
Author
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
Size
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2.1 MB
Content