post-defense revisions complete

thesis/chapters/02_background.tex

@@ -17,7 +17,55 @@ Choregraphe \cite{Pot2009}, developed by Aldebaran Robotics for the NAO and Pepp
 
 Recent years have seen renewed interest in comprehensive WoZ frameworks. Gibert et al. \cite{Gibert2013} developed the Super Wizard of Oz (SWoOZ) platform. This system integrates facial tracking, gesture recognition, and real-time control capabilities to enable naturalistic human-robot interaction studies. Virtual and augmented reality have also emerged as complementary approaches to WoZ. Helgert et al. \cite{Helgert2024} demonstrated how VR-based WoZ environments can simplify experimental setup while providing researchers with precise control over environmental conditions and high-fidelity data collection.
 
-This expanding landscape reveals a persistent fundamental gap in the design space of WoZ tools. Flexible, general-purpose platforms like Polonius and OpenWoZ offer powerful capabilities but present high technical barriers. Accessible, user-friendly tools like WoZ4U and Choregraphe lower those barriers but sacrifice cross-platform compatibility and longevity. Newer approaches such as VR-based frameworks attempt to bridge this gap, yet no existing tool successfully combines accessibility, flexibility, deployment portability, and built-in methodological rigor. By methodological rigor, I refer to systematic features that guide experimenters toward best practices: consistently following experimental protocols, maintaining comprehensive logging, and producing reproducible experimental designs.
+This expanding landscape reveals a persistent fundamental gap in the design space of WoZ tools. Flexible, general-purpose platforms like Polonius and OpenWoZ offer powerful capabilities but present high technical barriers. Accessible, user-friendly tools like WoZ4U and Choregraphe lower those barriers but sacrifice cross-platform compatibility and longevity. Newer approaches such as VR-based frameworks attempt to bridge this gap, yet no existing tool successfully combines accessibility, flexibility, deployment portability, and built-in methodological rigor. 
+
+\begin{figure}[htbp]
+\centering
+\begin{tikzpicture}[
+    scale=1.0,
+    quadbox/.style={rectangle, draw=white, ultra thick, minimum width=5.5cm, minimum height=4.5cm, align=center},
+    title/.style={font=\small\bfseries, align=center},
+    desc/.style={font=\footnotesize, text=gray!60, align=center},
+    axislabel/.style={font=\small\bfseries, align=center}
+]
+
+    % Quadrant Backgrounds
+    \fill[gray!20] (0, 4.5) rectangle (5.5, 9.0);   % Top Left (HRIStudio)
+    \fill[gray!15] (5.5, 4.5) rectangle (11.0, 9.0); % Top Right (Polonius)
+    \fill[gray!10] (0, 0) rectangle (5.5, 4.5);      % Bottom Left (WoZ4U)
+    \fill[gray!5] (5.5, 0) rectangle (11.0, 4.5);    % Bottom Right (Choregraphe)
+
+    % Quadrant Lines
+    \draw[white, ultra thick] (5.5, 0) -- (5.5, 9.0);
+    \draw[white, ultra thick] (0, 4.5) -- (11.0, 4.5);
+
+    % Axis Labels
+    \node[axislabel, above] at (2.75, 9.2) {Low technical barrier};
+    \node[axislabel, above] at (8.25, 9.2) {High technical barrier};
+    \node[axislabel, left] at (-0.2, 6.75) {More rigorous};
+    \node[axislabel, left] at (-0.2, 2.25) {Less rigorous};
+
+    % Top Left: The Gap
+    \node[axislabel] at (2.75, 6.75) {\Huge ?};
+
+    % Top Right: Polonius, OpenWoZ, SWoOZ
+    \node[title] at (8.25, 7.4) {Polonius, OpenWoZ\\SWoOZ, VR Environments};
+    \node[desc] at (8.25, 6.0) {Flexible and powerful,\\but requires significant\\programming expertise};
+
+    % Bottom Left: WoZ4U
+    \node[title] at (2.75, 2.7) {WoZ4U};
+    \node[desc] at (2.75, 1.7) {Accessible, but\\platform-specific\\No methodological rigor};
+
+    % Bottom Right: Choregraphe
+    \node[title] at (8.25, 2.7) {Choregraphe};
+    \node[desc] at (8.25, 1.7) {Requires specialized\\training\\No methodological rigor};
+
+\end{tikzpicture}
+\caption{The design space of WoZ tools categorized by technical barrier and methodological rigor. A fundamental gap exists for a platform that is both accessible and rigorous.}
+\label{fig:tool-matrix}
+\end{figure}
+
+By methodological rigor, I refer to systematic features that guide experimenters toward best practices: consistently following experimental protocols, maintaining comprehensive logging, and producing reproducible experimental designs.
 
 Moreover, few platforms directly address the methodological concerns raised by systematic reviews of WoZ research. Riek's influential analysis \cite{Riek2012} of 54 HRI studies uncovered widespread inconsistencies in how wizard behaviors were controlled and reported. Very few studies documented standardized wizard training procedures or measured wizard error rates, raising questions about internal validity---that is, whether observed outcomes can be attributed to the intended experimental manipulation rather than to uncontrolled variation in wizard behavior. The tools themselves often exacerbate this problem: poorly designed interfaces increase cognitive load on wizards, leading to timing errors and behavioral inconsistencies that can confound experimental results. Recent work by Strazdas et al. \cite{Strazdas2020} further demonstrates the importance of careful interface design in WoZ systems, showing that intuitive wizard interfaces directly improve both the quality of robot behavior and the reliability of collected data.