China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Human–Robot Interaction for Rehabilitation Robots
Published in Pedro Encarnação, Albert M. Cook, Robotic Assistive Technologies, 2017
Wing-Yue Geoffrey Louie, Sharaf Mohamed, Goldie Nejat
Overall perceptions and attitudes toward using a robot are a major factors in determining acceptance and use (Davis 1993). To determine if rehabilitation robots will be effective tools, we must measure user perceptions and attitudes toward them. Questionnaires are a method of data collection commonly used for measuring user perceptions, attitudes, and acceptance toward robotic rehabilitation technology as they allow researchers to easily gather large amounts of data (Bartneck, Kulic et al. 2009; Heerink et al. 2010). To date, only a handful of questionnaires have been tailored and validated for studying HRI in rehabilitation robotics. These questionnaires include: (1) the Godspeed questionnaire (Bartneck, Kulic et al. 2009); (2) the Almere model (Heerink et al. 2010); (3) the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Ryan 1982); (4) the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire (Hart and Staveland 1988); and (5) the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) questionnaire (Bradley and Lang 1994). These questionnaires measure user perceptions toward specific robot characteristics and/or functions. Many HRI studies have also used questionnaires designed or customized by the robot designers as they need to study specific user perceptions, demographics, and applications (Kang et al. 2005; Krebs et al. 1998; Tapus, Matarić, and Scassellati 2007).
Intragastric quinine administration decreases hedonic eating in healthy women through peptide-mediated gut-brain signaling mechanisms
Published in Nutritional Neuroscience, 2019
Julie Iven, Jessica R. Biesiekierski, Dongxing Zhao, Eveline Deloose, Owen G. O’Daly, Inge Depoortere, Jan Tack, Lukas Van Oudenhove
Every 10 minutes during scanning, subjects rated subjective sensations of hunger, prospective food consumption, fullness, satiety, and nausea, responding to the questions: ‘How hungry do you feel?’, ‘How much do you think you can eat?’, ‘How full do you feel?’, ‘How satisfied do you feel?’, and ‘How nauseous are you?’ on a computer-based 100 mm VAS ranging from ‘not at all’ (0 mm) to “very much” (100 mm). At the same time points, they completed the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), using pictograms to assess emotional state on the dimensions valence and arousal.18 Ratings were given by moving a tick mark along a line segment, back-projected onto a screen in the scanner, using a response box in their right hand. The order in which ratings were presented was randomized. The tick mark was reset to the middle of the line at the start of each VAS. Ratings were programed using Affect 4.0 software.19
Effects of a Brief Hypnosis Relaxation Induction on Subjective Psychological States, Cardiac Vagal Activity, and Breathing Frequency
Published in International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 2018
Sylvain Laborde, Sebastian Heuer, Emma Mosley
The subjective levels of stress, arousal, and emotional valence were determined via self-report items. For subjective stress, we used a visual analogue scale (Scott & Huskisson, 1976), which is a line of a length of 10 cm, anchored from 0 (not stressed) to 10 (absolutely stressed). This visual analogue scale as been found to be as reliable and as valid as longer questionnaires to quickly assess perceived stress (Lesage & Berjot, 2011; Lesage, Berjot, & Deschamps, 2012; Williams, Morlock, & Feltner, 2010). The self-assessment Manikin scales (Bradley & Lang, 1994) range for subjective arousal from 1 (extremely relaxed) to 9 (extremely aroused), and for subjective emotional valence from 1 (extremely negative) to 9 (extremely positive). The reliability and validity of the self-assessment Manikin scale have received extensive support (Betella & Verschure, 2016; Bynion & Feldner, 2018).
Lassoing Skill Through Learner Choice
Published in Journal of Motor Behavior, 2018
Gabriele Wulf, Takehiro Iwatsuki, Brittney Machin, Jessica Kellogg, Clint Copeland, Rebecca Lewthwaite
Participants were randomly assigned to either the choice or control group. In both groups, participants were first shown a 2 min 16 s video demonstration of how to throw a lasso (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TVvBAUQrBA). They then performed a five-trial pretest. During the pretest, a white mat was placed under the cone. Subsequently, participants completed a 15-trial practice phase. Choice group participants were informed that they would be able to choose the color of the mat under the cone before each block of three trials. Control group participants were told that the experimenter might change the mat under the cone before a three-trial block. Each participant in that group was yoked to one participant in the choice group, and the mat color was based on what his or her counterpart had chosen on the respective block. One day later, learning was assessed by a retention test consisting of 10 trials from the same distance. During the retention test, the white mat was put under the cone for all participants. The Self-Assessment Manikin (Bradley & Lang, 1994) was used to assess participants' affective state. The scale consisted of nine faces with different degrees of smiling, neutral, and frowning expressions (from left to right). Numbers were placed under each face and equidistant between faces, resulting in a 9-point rating scale. Before the pretest, at the end of practice, and before the retention test, participants were asked to indicate which number best reflected their current mood, with lower numbers representing more positive affect.