Skip to Content

Changes for page b. Test

Last modified by Jean-Paul Smit on 2024/04/09 15:23
From version 13.1
edited by William OGrady
on 2024/03/29 11:46
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 23.1
edited by Jean-Paul Smit
on 2024/04/06 14:29
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -c. Test
1 +b. Test
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.WilliamOGrady
1 +xwiki:XWiki.jeanpaulsmit
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 ===
... ... @@ -22,12 +22,9 @@
22 22  
23 23  ==== 2.3 Measures ====
24 24  
25 -Memory retrieval success will be measured using a quiz based on the fabricated memories. Participant feedback and observational notes will also be collected to assess the user experience and interaction effectiveness.
26 -We will evaluate the recall and memory-efficacy of both groups and try to relate the given answers to values **(link to evaluation in foundation) **such as autonomy and relatedness.
25 +Memory retrieval success will be measured using a [[quiz>>doc:.Quiz.WebHome]] based on the fabricated memories. Participant feedback and observational notes will also be collected to assess the user experience and interaction effectiveness. We will evaluate the recall and memory-efficacy of both groups and try to relate the given answers to values** **such as autonomy and relatedness.
27 27  
28 -**TODO: More info here once we have the actual evaluation forms (knowledge quiz + emotional questionnaire)**
29 29  
30 -
31 31  ==== 2.4 Procedure ====
32 32  
33 33  Participants will receive an overview of their role as a PwD and undergo a session with either Nao or text prompts to retrieve memories. Following the session, they will complete the memory quiz. Feedback will be gathered post-interaction.
... ... @@ -69,6 +69,11 @@
69 69  
70 70  === 4. Discussion ===
71 71  
69 +**Sample Group and Size impact validity of the study**
70 +
71 +The ecological validity of the study is impacted by the fact that there were no PwD in our sample.The scope of the experiment was limited to TU Delft University students. That means that future research may benefit from a closer approach to an experiment which is closer to the experience of PwD. Moreover, the controlled experiment was restricted to a cohort of 20 participants, underscoring the potential for enhancing result validity through the utilization of a larger sample size
72 +
73 +
72 72  **//Participants don't know about points system so they didn't answer with "getting the most points" in mind//**
73 73  
74 74  //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.//
... ... @@ -87,8 +87,8 @@
87 87  
88 88  === 5. Conclusions ===
89 89  
90 -== //**Ethical Considerations**// ==
92 +===== //**Ethical Considerations**// =====
91 91  
92 -We commit to high ethical standards, respecting the sensitive nature of simulating dementia conditions, and ensuring the well-being and dignity of all participants throughout the study. To ensure this we present a form containing the ethical considerations to each participant. **TODO: put in link to ethics form?**
94 +We commit to high ethical standards, respecting the sensitive nature of simulating dementia conditions, and ensuring the well-being and dignity of all participants throughout the study. To ensure this we present a form containing the ethical considerations to each participant.
93 93  
94 94  
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