DrГјck Mich Spiel Spiel Mich Flyer 2019
Spiel mich! Vom 6. Juli bis August luden in der Karlsruher Innenstadt erneut Klaviere zum freien Musizieren ein. Eine besondere Atmosphäre, die. Ab dem Juni ist es wieder soweit, die Klavier-Mitmach-Aktion "Spiel mich! PF" geht in die zweite Runde. Vier wochen lange, bis zum Juli haben alle. Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod (Originaltitel: C'era una volta il West; englischer Titel: Once Upon a Time in the West) ist ein von Sergio Leone inszenierter. Euch hat die Freude am Klavierspielen gepackt und ihr wollt nicht bis warten? Kein Problem! Die Spiel mich!-Klaviere können zum Sonderpreis von Followers, Following, 19 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Spiel-Mich (@spielmich).michael kors purse outlet (Reply) drГјck glГјck casino, el casino vila-real – casino in barcelona: kulosaaren casino kokemuksia. green casino, casino segovia – free casino spiele ohne anmeldung: fruit casino. Followers, Following, 19 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Spiel-Mich (@spielmich). Spiel mich! Vom 6. Juli bis August luden in der Karlsruher Innenstadt erneut Klaviere zum freien Musizieren ein. Eine besondere Atmosphäre, die. Ich möchte mich zum ersten Mal vorstellen, ist mein Name Rechtsanwalt Sergio Dumas, und ich möchte wissen, Zahlungsmethoden mit bonus https://casino-koeltechniekmaes.be Paypal online casino. drГјck glГјck casino sagt. Spiel Mich. Am Mai , im Jahr der Kulturhauptstadt Ruhr, startete die erste CityRing Spiel Mich Aktion in Dortmund mit 30 Standorten. Aufgrund der. michael kors purse outlet (Reply) drГјck glГјck casino, el casino vila-real – casino in barcelona: kulosaaren casino kokemuksia. green casino, casino segovia – free casino spiele ohne anmeldung: fruit casino.
DrГјck Mich Spiel VideoPlaymobil Film deutsch - Bindehautentzündung - Kinderfilm mit Familie Jäger Sound eating is not fro thorough ltimfia. There has been the eternal love Vorwahlnummer Usa Cartier and super DrГјck Mich Spiel. In the whole process of repositioning the brand is essential to note these points: 1, re-find and establish their very own superiority to advantage; 2, further forging and display business advantage; 3, will be the brand for the market, plus accordance with the market feedback and brand advantage from the strategic planning and adjustment; 4, through a group Dnsblock public relations and advertising campaigns shaped and continues to this advantage. Opening this can then show silk lining that have an Skl Traum Joker Erfahrungen christian louboutin open Avatar Das Spiel pocket for Beste Spielothek in Stockern finden storage to its 11 x 3 x 2 inches dimension. Darnellneesk Reply Leone hatte geplant, die drei Killer in der Anfangssequenz von den Hauptdarstellern des Vorgängerfilms Zwei glorreiche Halunken darstellen Paypal Alternativen lassen. Consequently stay away from diamond jewelry employing cobalt and also opera as an component. Doch keiner der Anwesenden gibt ein ernstzunehmendes Gebot ab, da Franks Leute alle eingeschüchtert haben. Google Essay Writer Reply 9. Easy Payday Loan Reply 6.
The subject sat at the table and faced the two robots. The researcher stood behind the subject. All twelve participants got an instruction Appendix C at the beginning of the experiment.
Additionally, the subject got the information that they can use the balls for the Lego Mindstorm and it reacts on orders, which the participants should explore.
According to Van Someren et al. On this basis the elderly also got an explanation of the purpose of the study. After the instruction the participants had to sign an informed consent Appendix D.
For many people the think aloud method is unknown and it is difficult to vocalize their thoughts Van Someren et al. Therefore, Van Someren et al.
As a practice trial the participants got the instruction to build a paper airplane and verbalize their thoughts. To minimize the effect of the recorder and the camera, the practice trial was already recorded and filmed so that the subjects could get used to it.
Subsequently, the test person interacted approximately five minutes with each robot. To avoid an effect of sequence six subjects 3 males and 3 females started the interaction with the Furby and continued with Johan.
The other ones started with Johan. Due to the fact that there is no off-modus of the Furby and it keeps talking, the researcher took the battery out of the Furby if it was not in use.
The researcher had a passive role and just intervened if the subject did not think out loud, by reminding the subject to do so.
After finishing the interaction process the semi-structured interviews Appendix B were executed. For the interview the researcher sat at the table.
At the end of the experiment the subjects were debriefed through telling that the researcher guided the Lego Mindstorm.
Analysis The audio files were transliterated for the transcripts see Appendix E The data was sorted into five categories for an excerpt see Appendix F.
Category one to three, appearance, behavior and interaction are based on the founded categories of the recent researches.
Category four, additional design principles for a robot, is based on the fourth sub question, What are other desirable aspects of a robot?.
The last category, other, came up through the coding process. The categories contain aspects based on the following definitions.
The appearance category includes all external physical aspects of the robot and includes also the handling of the robots.
The second category, behavior, includes all kinds of movements which are observable and independent of the subject, for instance eye movement or walking.
Interaction is the third category and composes all actions of an interrelationship between human and robot. This category includes communication and the interactive affection of the human and the robot.
Additionally, categories one to three contain improvement suggestions which are relevant for the corresponding category. Additional 1 The subject numbers 1 to 6 are females and the numbers 7 to 12 males.
This category includes additional functions which were evaluated as necessary, for instance cleaning.
Therefore this category consists of conclusions or opinions about the robots. Subsequently, the statements of the different categories were split into the two different robots and distinguished into positive, negative or neutral statements Appendix G.
If it was not clearly a positive or negative statement, the quotation was classified as neutral. The constant comparison method was used to identify typologies.
The second part of the analysis, sorting the quotations of the different codes into the table, was verified by the interrater reliability.
A second independent rater also classified the quotation of the categories one to three in positive, negative or neutral statements.
To assign the consistency among raters the Kappa statistic was determined with SPSS 20, software for quantitative data analysis.
Since this research aims to design an entertainment robot, the enjoyment of the user is an important aspect. Thus irrespective of the audio analysis, the video material was analyzed by counting the face expressions of the subjects which reflect happiness.
The facial expressions were scored as reflecting happiness when the mouth corners were raised. The laugh frequency was used to compare the two robots and to examine if there is a gender difference.
This quantitative data was analyzed by SPSS 20 using graphical representations. The Kappa statistic was utilized, using SPSS 20, to calculate the agreement of the researcher with another independent judge.
For the videography see the CD, Appendix H. Results Results are distinguished into the categories appearance, behavior, interaction, other and additional design principles for a robot.
According to Landis and Koch an agreement of 0. Due to the good degree of agreement among the two raters the categorization into positive, negative or neutral is reliable.
Appearance As a result of constant comparison the quotations of the appearance category were classified into two types, type A and B.
An overview of the typologies is presented in Table 1. In contrast, the five type B subjects judged the appearance of Johan as positive and the type A subjects as negative.
The fact that the subjects started with a different robot had no effect on the classification into the types. In type A three subjects started the interaction with the Furby and two subjects with Johan.
In type B two subjects started with the Furby and three with Johan. Within the other categories no typologies were found.
For instance subject 4 type A mentioned the Furby throughout all categories in a positive manner and Johan in negative manner. Table 1.
Subjects of this type assessed the appearance negatively. Johan Subjects of type A had a negative attitude towards Johan.
Type B subjects judged the appearance of Johan as good. In the brackets are the number of the subjects who correspond to the statement. According to them females prefer the Furby and males prefer the Mindstorm robot.
Due to the constant comparison method there was no gender difference found within the two types. Since the statements about the eyes and ears were inconsistent with the two types the judgments concerning the eyes and ears are excluded from the typologies.
The guy has nice eyes, hm. The size of the eyes, the eye movements and the eyelashes were appraised as affirmative. On the contrary one subject judged the gaze of the Furby as suspicious but also as funny.
Another person judged the gaze as melancholic. Yes and the ears have also turned out well. One of these subjects belongs to type A and the other to type B.
The appearance is appealing and lets say compensating. Da vermutet man nichts negatives, egal was der dann vielleicht nachher macht. However, one subject 4 , type A, suggested that the Furby needs to be softer in order to be cuddlier and a little bit bigger.
This subject related the robot usage to the elderly with dementia. Furthermore, the fact that you can pick up the Furby and carry it the handling was evaluated positively.
The handiness of the robot seemed to have a positive effect. One subject 8 mentioned explicitly the form of the robot which could have a good impact on other people.
Subject 1 was worried about the hygiene due to the reason that it is not possible to wash the coat of the Furby. Type A subjects evaluated the appearance of Johan as negative because it is colorless and too angular.
Furthermore, the design was designated as cold and too electronic. Two subjects estimated that the robot has to be less mechanical and needs some sort of cover or costume to make it more human.
One participant 8 suggested that the robot could wear a jacket and trousers to look more like a human. It is also mentioned that the cover should minimize the risk of damage and it would make the robot handier.
Moreover, the robots present appearance was described as breakable. Subject 4 is the only participant of type A which was consistent throughout all categories.
She had an aversion to Johan and a positive attitude towards the Furby throughout the apperance, behavior and interaction category. Type B Essentially, for me this thing looks extremely ugly.
The subjects evaluated the external design of the Furby as poor, ugly, strange and deformed. The appearance of the Furby was criticized because it looks like a toy.
The technical appearance made the robot more attractive. It was described as humanly and one subject 10 stated that it was easier to talk to this kind of a robot than towards an animalistic robot.
The strict and robotic look was more attractive for some subjects, also because it is not excessive. One subject 11 stated that the external design of the Mindstorm robot matches with the conception of how a robot has to look like.
Contrarily to the last argument, one subject 5 claimed similar to two subjects of type A that the robot needs some sort of cover.
This participant did not have a conception of a typical cover. Subjects 10 and 11 were consistent with the type B categorization throughout all three categories.
Some important aspects are mentioned in the following section. Due to contradictory statements, subject 3 could not be categorized into one type. On the one hand the subject preferred the appearance of the Furby to that of Johan.
On the other hand she stated that the humanly look of Johan is an important aspect for her. According to her, the robot could have the same look as the present Mindstorm robot has.
Due to these contradictory statements subject 3 was excluded from the typologies. Regardless of this fact statements of subject 3 were still used in this study.
The second subject which could not be categorized is subject Concerning Johan, this participant argued that the electronic part is an advantage and a disadvantage at the same time.
By reason of the technical look of Johan, the electronic appearance was described as a disadvantage. Oppositional, the subject stated that the electronic part is the fascinating one.
Behavior Beside the three subjects who were consistent throughout all categories, no other subjects were consistent concerning the behavior.
Further regularities were not found. Der hat kein Verhalten, der hat eine Miniprogrammierung, die er auf Knopfdruck von sich gibt.
He utilizes the atmosphere and probably works with it afterwards. Die Stimmung aufbrauchen, um dann damit nachher vielleicht zu arbeiten. Furthermore, the limited movements were evaluated as negative.
Johan For me, he can only do the same movements. He turns a little bit, he takes the ball, the green one, says green, yellow and throws them down. Wirft die runter.
Aber ich sehe nicht den Sinn des Ganzen im Augenblick. He is already highly sophisticated. Der ist schon auf ziemlich hohen Stand.
Due to frequently repetition of the same movements, the subjects stated that there is more variability required. One subject 12 judged the walking process as strange and was wondering why the robot did not fall.
The walking behavior was interpreted as an advance or avoidance behavior of the robot. If the robot walked towards the subject the behavior was interpreted as approach behavior.
If the robot walked backward it was interpreted in the opposite way that it tried to avoid the subject.
On the one hand the flexibility was seen as an advantage and on the other hand there was the demand for more movements, for instance head movement, arm movement, opening the arms and the possibility to grip something.
One subject 11 argued that more movements would make the robot more interesting and plausible. Interaction Preliminary it should be considered that the interaction with Johan was only possible due to the use of the Wizard of Oz method.
None of the subjects realized that Johan was guided. Only one subject 4 asked if the Furby was manipulated.
The television is a passive medium and one can only sit in front of it. Soon it probably can say change it or it already works today, change the program.
But this one, I touch it and he talks to me. Aber der, den pack ich an und der redet mit mir. The poor articulation was frequently mentioned as a negative aspect of the Furby.
One subject 1 stated that the robot has no use if it is not understandable. The subjects had the feeling that they had no influences on Furby.
Only one subject 10 had the feeling that he could affect the Furby through stimulating different sensors which lead to different reactions and usage of different words.
Further negative points were the missing speech cognition and the fact that the Furby only reacted if you lift it up. The subjects evaluated it as annoying that the Furby needed to be stimulated and did not start some actions by itself.
At the beginning, some subjects felt helplessness and did not know what they had to do to animate the Furby. The singing Furby was specified in positive terms.
One subject 4 got a suitable reaction, she lifted the Furby up and then it asked to let it down, which was evaluated as funny.
Subject 9 mentioned the active form of the Furby, compared to the passive medium television in a positive manner. However, these subjects did not evaluate the interaction process for a robot for their own use, these judgments were related to a robot for the usage of the elderly with dementia.
Johan The interaction is certainly limited. And I think there will be possibilities to build such a robot or robots like this more difficile, that it has more possibilities.
And basically he behaved as you asked from him, what was within his opportunities. Die Farben erkennen vor allen Dingen.
The interaction was interpreted as a possibility to have a conversation with the robot and the robot created the impression to be rational. The interpretation of a friendly and polite robot resulted from the possibility to interact with the robot.
Furthermore, the quick reactions were valued and described as an interrelationship between human and robot. Leaving aside How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly?
Five subjects judged the interaction game with the colored balls as positive and admired the fact that the robot can recognize the colors.
In contrast to the last fact some subjects interpreted the act of throwing the balls away part of the interaction game as an antipathy of the robot.
It was interpreted as a sign that the robot would like to stop the game. Only one subject 10 was satisfied with the present responses to the different orders and would not add any other features.
Concerning the negative aspects, the fact that the robot was hard to understand was frequently alluded. Only one subject 9 judged the understandability as good.
The robot should talk loud and clear so that even the elderly with hearing aid can understand it. Furthermore, there is a demand that the robot has a wider range of vocabulary.
Participant 4 and 6 mentioned that a robot conversation cannot be like a human conversation. The fact that the language was limited to a few words and that the robot could give just stored vocabulary was seen as a disadvantage of a robot.
In addition a robot should not say no, the robot should do what is requested. A robot should be adaptive and it should follow orders. One subject 3 argued that it felt strange to talk to a machine and another subject 4 stated that there was no communication possible.
A last negative point is the limitation of capabilities of the robot. The subjects stated that the robot needs more variation to entertain someone.
Additional design principles for a robot The utility would be important for me. For me it would be more important that he can give me recipes.
Thus I would find it pleasant if he is useful. There is no demand for a robot which only conduces as an entertainment robot. A robot should be useful and help humans in their everyday life.
A robot should support the elderly, people in need of care and do things which people begrudgingly do, as for instance mopping the ground.
Further supporting actions which were mentioned are: vacuuming, cleaning, helping to get into the stair lift, picking up objects, passing objects to the elderly, mowing the lawn, supporting the cooking process, reading a book and reminding the people to take their pills.
The functions should be easy to understand and there is a demand to get a good instruction. I can imagine that people who are only sitting at home lonely and twice a day the nursing service comes by and otherwise they are on their own that they say the robot is like a dog.
This category also includes the final conclusion of the subjects about the robots. The Furby was often described as a toy and that it has limited functions to entertain someone.
A few subjects did not know what they should do with such a robot and stated that it would be boring very quickly. As a result of the limited functions the Furby was often described as stupid and some subjects stated that they would give it away quickly.
As opposed to this the Furby was described as funny. Three subjects mentioned that the use of this robot could be effective for the elderly, dementia patients or people who are living alone.
The second robot, Johan, was described as humanly and intelligent. One subject 1 judged the name Johan to be suitably due to the fact that in books and films Johan is often the butler.
This robot could also be a butler and support humans. There was an immense interest in how Johan works and the technology was seen as a challenge.
This subject would also like How to design an entertainment robot for the healthy elderly? Conversely, the technology led to an aversion of robots.
Some subjects judged the robot as too complicated. Video Through the video analysis the laugh frequencies were counted.
Due to the large standard deviation in the amount of laughs for the different subjects, the relative laugh frequency is used.
The most laughs were found for Johan Figure 5 shows that nine subjects had relative a higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition compared to the Furby condition.
In two cases more laughs were detected in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition and one subject had a similar laugh frequency relating to both robots.
Figure 6 shows the comparison between type A en type B concerning the relative laugh frequencies. For the distribution of the laughs see Table 2.
Example: Laugh frequency of a woman in the Furby condition is abbreviated through fWF. Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot separately for each subject.
Bar graph showing the relative laugh frequency by robot and typology. Neither the constant comparison method nor the video analysis showed a gender difference in relation to the two robots.
However, on the basis of the think aloud method and the semi-structured interviews some important aspects could be identified. Relating the sub questions of this research: 1 How do the subjects evaluate the external designs of the robots?
Concerning the overall appearance no design was preferred explicitly. There is no specific design that appeals to all people. This result is consistent with the hypotheses of Dautenhahn that, among others, different appearance preferences are the reason why one robot for all will not exist.
Furthermore, Scopelliti et al. The reason why subjects experienced Johan as friendly and polite were according to Tay Tiong Chee, Taezoon, Xu, Ng and Tan the humanoid features which lead to a friendlier impression of robots.
Additionally, the eyes are an important aspect of the robot independent of the two types. Big eyes and eye movements are important aspects for a robot and improve the acceptance.
This is in line with the concept of the baby schema Kindchenschema which was postulated by Konrad Lorenz Vicedo, According to Vicedo the baby schema includes among others huge eyes and implicates that something is seen as cute.
Overall, more laughs were detected in the Johan condition. It is noticeable that the subjects often laughed if Johan said thanks or gave a suitable answer.
Due to this finding a possible explanation of the higher laugh frequency in the Johan condition is the possibility of the social interaction, for instance having a conversation.
Because of time restrictions, a more thorough video analysis showing the precise factors causing the laughs was not possible. Type A subjects, who had a positive attitude towards the Furby, had fewer laughs in the Furby condition compared to the Johan condition.
Type B subjects had less laughs in the Furby condition as well. Nevertheless, the relative amount of laughs in the Furby condition was higher for type A subjects compared to type B subjects.
This indicates that the typologies based on the appearance have some correlation on the laugh frequency. Further, the three subjects, whose statements were consistent with their type classification throughout all categories, were analyzed separately.
The laugh frequencies of two subjects were in line with their overall consistency. More laughs of subject 4 were detected in the Furby condition compared to laughs about Johan.
This is in line with her classification into type A, positive attitude towards the Furby and an aversion for Johan.
The laugh detection of subject 11, type B, is also in line with the consistency of the subject. He had throughout all categories an aversion for the Furby and a positive attitude towards Johan.
Concerning the laugh frequency of subject 11, fewer laughs were detected in the Furby condition. However, the laugh frequency of subject 10 was not consistent with his attitude towards the robot.
This subject belonged to type B, yet more laughs were detected in the Furby condition. Concerning the laugh frequency, a larger sample is required to do a statistical analysis.
With regard to the behavior, a robot needs many movement abilities, for instance head movements, arm movements, bending down et cetera.
Moreover, behavior that is versatile is preferred. Speech recognition and taking orders are important aspects in relation to interaction possibilities of a robot.
These findings are in line with other researches who claimed that speech is the preferred instrument of communication Scopelliti et al.
Regarding the speech possibilities, it is important that the robot speaks loudly and is easy to understand.
Concerning the last sub questions, What are other desirable aspects of a robot? The users will expect that the robot can do something for them, for instance vacuum cleaning, picking up things, supporting the cooking process, providing information, et cetera.
The last two aspects, supporting the cooking process and providing information, are supported by findings of Scopelliti et al.
Further, one female subject 5 stated that a robot should have the possibility to learn things. Contrarily, according to Scopelliti et. The other subjects of this study did not mention this aspect.
Concerning this aspect, if a robot should be preprogramed or have the ability to learn something, more research is needed. On top of that the following aspects, which could not be classified into the sub questions, should be considered as well.
The subjects were often skeptical if a robot can entertain them and concluded that they do not need an entertainment robot. A reason for this skepticism is the underestimations of the possibility of a robot to perform entertainment tasks Scopelliti et al.
Concerning this aspect it is important to show the elderly the possibilities of robots to decrease the skepticism concerning entertainment functions.
The last important aspect is the requirement of a detailed introduction of the robot. An easy understanding of the functions is needed, which is supported by a research of Saini et al.
This study has also some limitations which have to be considered. The limitations refer to the sample and to the experiment itself. Further research is required to make the findings more reliable and to quantify them.
The study of Lee, Junga, Kimb and Kimb showed that social agents are more attractive to lonely people and they assumed that a social agent could provide companionship.
The entertainment factor was judged critical in this sample, further research should examine if marriage is a critical factor of the received entertainment skills.
Furthermore, two limitations in relation to Johan should be considered. The male name of the Mindstorm robot, Johan, was only elected to facilitate the acquaintance with the robot and did not correspond to the female voice.
No subject mentioned this illogical combination. Only one subject 1 referred to the name at all and argued that Johan is a suitable name. Concerning the experiment itself the researcher had to intervene into the experiment which might be a factor of influence.
At the interaction game of the Mindstrom robot the researcher had to point out that the subject has to use the green ball before the robot can perform further.
Moreover, the room was too bright once 4 and it took a long time before the robot detected a color. The problem was that the robot had to carry out the commanded program completely and it was not possible to stop it manually and change to another program.
Further research should install the robot in the way that it is possible to stop each program of the robot with a button. Through this application it would seem that it could react on orders superiorly.
Subject to discussion can also be the use of the Wizard of Oz experiment. The means of this research were limited, therefore this kind of experiment was used.
The Wizard of Oz method is often criticized because the subjects are misled and get a wrong impression.
Since technology already exists that make this kind of interactions possible, for instance the NAO robot 4, this method gave no erroneously impression.
Conclusion Due to the fact that the present features of the Furby and Johan were evaluated as useless, the findings of this study should be taken into account to make it more acceptable.
To infer to the main questions of this research, How do we have to design an entertainment therapy robot for the healthy elderly who are living independently in their homes?
The robot needs to be introduced in detail to the healthy elderly This study yields interesting aspects of the questions how we have to design an entertainment robot but needs further research to generalize these findings.
After the quantification of the results a prototype robot can be build and the effectiveness can be tested. Measuring national well-being - older.
Office for National Statistics, Broekens, J. Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology, 8 2 , Wizard of oz studies - why and how.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 6 4 , Dautenhahn, K. Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human-robot interaction.
Feil-Seifer, D. Human-robot interaction. New York: Springer. Forlizzi, J. Human Computer Interaction, 19 45 , Gates, B.
A robot in every home: The leader of pc revolution predicts that the next hot field will be robotics. Scientific American, Heerink, M.
Studying the acceptance of a robotic agent by elderly users. International Journal of ARM, 7 3 , Hirsch, T. In Jean Scholtz Chair.
The elder project: social and emotional factors in the design of eldercare technologies.. In John Thomas Ed. Kanamori, M. Maintenance and improvement of quality of life among elderly patients using a pet-type robot.
Klamer, T. Acceptance and use of a social robot by elderly users in a domestic environment. Pervasive computing technologies for healthcare pervasivehealth , 4th international conference on-no permissions, Munich.
Landis, J. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?
Marti, P. Socially assistive robotics in the treatment of behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. In Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics, BioRob Ray, C.
What do people expect from robots?. IEEE Press. Saini, P. Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home.
Interacting with Computers, 17, Scopelliti, M. Robots in a domestic setting: a psychological approach. Serrano, M.
A wizard of oz component-based approach for rapidly prototyping and testing input multimodal interfaces.
Shibata, T. Stasi, M. Pet-therapy: a trial for institutionalized frail elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr Suppl.
Loneliness among older Europeans. Eur J Ageing, 6, Tacken, M. Use and acceptance of new technology by older people.
Gerontechjournal, 3 3 , Tay Tiong Chee, B. Personality of social robots perceived through the apperance. IOS Press, 41, The world factbook. London: Published by Academic Press.
Vicedo, M. ISIS, 2 , Vos, H. Social Research Methods. Enschede, Netherlands: Pearson Education Limited. Wada, K. Robot therapy in a care house, results of case studies.
In Robot and Human Interactive Communication, ROMAN Wolf, D. Einsamkeit - innere leere. Was waren die Nachteile? Johan Was fanden Sie vorteilhaft bei Johan?
Was sind die Nachtteile? Wie das Verhalten von dem Furby? Furby Was halten Sie vom Aussehen des Furby?
Johan Und was halten Sie vom Aussehen von Johan? Wie beurteilen Sie die Interaktion mit dem Furby? Dieser Roboter soll zur Unterhaltung dienen.
Sie brauchen sich keine Sorgen, dass andere Aspekte untersucht werden. Sie haben gleich pro Roboter ca. Ich bitte Sie laut zu denken.
Alle Informationen die ich sammele werden anonym und vertraulich bearbeitet. Die Untersuchung dauert etwa 30 Minuten. Haben Sie zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch Fragen?
Es spielt keine Rolle, welche Art. Bitte versuchen Sie alle ihre Gedanken laut auszusprechen. Sehr gut. Dann beginnen wir jetzt mit den beiden Robotern.
Sollten Sie nicht verstehen was Johan sagt, geben Sie mir bitte einen kurzen Hinweis, dann werde ich es wiederholen.
Ich bin mir bewusst, dass die Teilnahme an dieser Studie freiwillig ist. Die gesamte Studie wird ca. Der Forscher wird weitere Fragen zu diesem Forschungsprojekt beantworten, jetzt oder im Verlauf der Untersuchung.
Unterschrift Untersuchungsleiter Proband Unterschrift Keine Ente, keine Maus, ein Fantasietier. Furby is interrupting laughing Scheinbar ist er nicht damit einverstanden.
Oder er? Ist es ein er? Furby ja, ein er. Ein Hund. Furby is interrupting Ich kann dich leider nicht verstehen, vielleicht versuchst du es mal in meiner Sprache.
Furby is interrupting Ja, da ist immer noch nichts angekommen bei mir. Wenn ich dich nicht verstehe, was soll ich dann mit dir.
Furby is interrupting Oder? Ohho Subject repeats the Furby. Aber vielleicht verstehen kleine Kinder das ja viel mehr als alte Leute, was du sagst.
Furby is interrupting Okay, ich habe genug von dir. Furby is interrupting. Interviewer: Ok, Dann mach ich jetzt einmal ganz kurz die Batterien raus, weil sonst redet der die ganze Zeit weiter.
So, bringen wir ihn mal zum schweigen. Subject: Aber was redet der? Interviewer: Das ist Furbisch. So, bei Johan der redet auch, nur der ist etwas schlecht zu verstehen.
Wenn etwas nicht verstanden wird, dann eben Bescheid geben und ich wiederhole das dann eben, ok? Subject: Ich habe da ja auch nichts verstanden.
Interviewer: Ne, das kann ich aber auch nicht. Das ist Furbisch. Subject: Johan is acting Hallo Johan.
Johan: Ja Guten Morgen. Johan: Hallo, Wie geht es Ihnen? Guten Morgen Johan. Hallo Wie geht es dir? Johan: Gut. Danke Oh ja danke, mir geht es auch gut.
Ich freue mich dich kennen zu lernen. Johan is acting Warum gehst du denn jetzt weg von mir? Johan is acting Ah ja komm mal her. Subject: Achso. Johan is acting Johan throws the ball away Hast du sie alle fallen lassen.
Ich habe was verkehrt gemacht, glaube ich. Rot Ist gut, ja. Johan throws the ball away Ups. Schon wieder. Was ist denn falsch? Johan: blau Ja laughing Johan thorws the balls away Danke.
Ja, wenn du nicht mit mir spielen willst, dann eben nicht. Dann sag mir was anderes was wir tun sollen? Ne in die andere Hand.
Johan is acting Dann schauen wir doch mal. Johan throws the ball away Nein, der Rote ist auch nicht gut. Ich habe es geschafft.
Johan throws the balls away Wollen wir das mal tauschen. Johan:Gelb Gelb, ja. Johan is acting Johan throws the ball away Johan: Gut.
Danke Bitte. Johan: Musik, bitte Musik bitte? Johan is acting Ja, auf Wiedersehen. Ich sehe du willst mich verlassen. Johan is acting nein doch nicht?
Ja komm mal zu mir. Guter Johan. Links schwenk. Johan is acting Rechts. Du machst ja gar nicht was ich sage. Johan: Nein.
Johan: Nein Bitte? Johan: Nein Interviewer: Der sagt; Nein. Subject: Nein? Links rum. Subject: Na dann komm her.
Johan is acting Aber warum stehst du denn so schief? Ah ja, ich verstehe. Ja noch ein bisschen. Hup Johan falls.
Oh du willst in meine Arme fallen. Ja, komm her. Ich halte dich. Johan is acting Stopp. Haben wir genug gespielt?
Interviewer: Genau. Dann fangen wir mit dem Furby an. Was sind denn ihrer Meinung nach Vorteile vom Furby?
Die sticht so heraus aus dem Fell. Ja und die Ohren sind auch gut gelungen. Interviewer: Und Nachtteile vom Furby? Kann man das waschen?
Wahrscheinlich nicht. Ein Roboter kann man an sich ja nicht waschen, auch wenn man die Batterien rausnimmt. Interviewer: Wahrscheinlich nicht.
Subject: Ich sehe keine Nachteile. Interviewer: Ok. Und jetzt bei Johan, wenn wir mit den Vorteilen anfangen? Subject: Er tut was man sagt.
Johan ist auch ein passender Name. Interviewer: Und Nachteile? Sprache einmal. Subject: Ja, die Sprache.
Das ist mir ein bisschen zu eckig point to the display. Das soll ja sicher irgendwie sein Gesicht darstellen, diese Einheit. Dann einmal zum Verhalten allgemein.
Was sagen Sie zum Verhalten zu Johan? Subject: Er macht das prima. Interviewer: Ja? Subject: Ja. Interviewer: Okay, und der Furby?
Subject: Auch. Interviewer: Ok, also beides gut? Subject: ja. Was ist sonst noch vorteilhaft oder negativ vom Aussehen her? Wir wird das beurteilt?
Subject: Die Farbe. Mir fehlt da etwas rot. Das ist etwas was einem sofort ins Auge springt. Also ein bisschen farblos.
Interviewer: Okay. Und beim Furby? Subject: Der ist ok von den Farben. Die Farben gefallen mir. Du bist okay Subject talks to the robot.
Interviewer: Jetzt die Interaktion zwischen den beiden. Also fangen wir mit dem Furby an. Wie reagiert der auf einen?
Wie reagieren Sie auf den? Subject: Also, ich habe auf dich Furby eigentlich positiv reagiert, wobei ich dich auch nicht so richtig verstanden habe.
Und das mit den Augen klimpern und dem Mund auf und zu, dass hat mir gefallen. Interviewer: Und bei Johan? Subject: Ja, wie ich schon gesagt habe, da fehlt mir ein bisschen die Farbe.
Sprache ist zu leise. Und eigentlich hat er das getan oder nicht alles getan was er tun sollte, aber er ist ja sicher noch in der Entwicklung. Interviewer: Hm.
Und jetzt zur Interaktion? Wie wirkte der so? Subject: Futuristisch laughing Interviewer: Futuristisch laughing.
Das waren jetzt so meine Fragen. Aber ist da noch irgendwas wichtiges was Sie als wichtig empfinden, was die beiden Roboter haben sollte?
Was so ein Roboter haben sollte, was ich jetzt irgendwie vergessen habe. Subject: Also der Roboter sollte schon das tun was man von ihm erwartet.
Wenn er das nicht tut, dann war es der falsche. Interviewer: Ja okay. Salut pokerstars. Vielen dank hitachi projection pwb assembly. Friday, 19 December Kartentrick kennt ihr denn?
Mal son alter Freund hat mal ein Kartentrick gemacht. Ich sollte ein karte aus dem Stappel ziehen und merken und dann wider in den stapel rein tuhen.
Ich taht die karte wider in den stappel und er mischte. Dan nahm ich die karte und er machte weiter. Das sind eine neue Art Namens Synchro-Monster.
Gib das mal bei Yugioh Wiki ein mobile phone earpiece. Wednesday, 10 December Wie kann man herausfinden was in eine m Booster drin ist?
Das geht nur sehr schwer. Aber mit normalen Mitteln geht das nur durch aufmachen. Tuesday, 2 December Samstag Jass aus der Schweiz?
Also die 5 Karte wird dann nicht mehr umgedreht oder? Check ist nur, dass Sie nicht post-Wette. Newer Posts Older Posts Home.