soconnor/irb-application
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/soconnor0919/irb-application.git synced 2026-02-04 15:56:31 -05:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

milestone 2 submission

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sean O'Connor
2026-01-25 20:47:44 -05:00
parent 2fd89e9799
commit a7722caa8b
9 changed files with 305 additions and 27 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
irbapplication.tex
View File

@@ -3,6 +3,12 @@
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{parskip}
% Spacing configuration
\onehalfspacing
\setlength{\parskip}{1em}
\setlist{itemsep=0.5em, topsep=0.5em}
% Title formatting
\titleformat{\section}{\large\bfseries}{\thesection}{1em}{}
@@ -60,7 +66,7 @@ Please describe in some detail the purpose of the proposed study (including, as
For my honors thesis project, I am evaluating HRIStudio, a web-based platform I developed for designing and executing Wizard-of-Oz experiments in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).
My research question compares HRIStudio against the industry standard (Choregraphe) to determine their impact on:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Disciplinary Accessibility:} Can non-technical domain experts successfully design a robot interaction?
\item \textbf{Disciplinary Accessibility:} Can domain experts without prior robotics experience successfully design a robot interaction?
\item \textbf{Scientific Reproducibility:} Does the tool minimize human error and data loss during experiment execution?
\end{enumerate}
I hypothesize that participants using HRIStudio will achieve higher Design Fidelity Scores and Execution Reliability Scores than those using the control software.
@@ -106,13 +112,13 @@ This is a between-subjects user study comparing two software interfaces.
\textbf{For "Wizard" Participants (75 minutes):}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Training (15 mins):} Participant receives a standardized tutorial on their assigned software (HRIStudio or Choregraphe) covering speech, motion, and triggers.
\item \textbf{Design Challenge (30 mins):} Participant is given a "Paper Specification" (a storyboard for a 'Geography Quiz Proctor' scenario) and must implement it on the robot. The researcher tracks time-to-completion and help requests.
\item \textbf{Design Challenge (30 mins):} Participant is given a "Paper Specification" (a storyboard for an 'Interactive Storyteller' scenario) and must implement it on the robot. The researcher tracks time-to-completion and help requests.
\item \textbf{Live Trial (15 mins):} A "Test Subject" (Group B participant) enters the room. The Wizard uses their interface to administer the quiz to the Test Subject.
\item \textbf{Debrief (15 mins):} Wizard exports the data and completes the System Usability Scale (SUS) survey.
\end{enumerate}
\textbf{For "Test Subject" Participants (15 minutes):}
The Test Subject enters the lab, consents to participate, and interacts with the robot for the duration of the "Geography Quiz" (approx. 5-10 minutes). They answer the robot's questions naturally.
The Test Subject enters the lab, consents to participate, and interacts with the robot for the duration of the "Interactive Storyteller" interaction (approx. 5-10 minutes). They answer the robot's questions naturally.
\vspace{0.2cm}
\textbf{b) Approximately how much time each subject is expected to devote to the research}
@@ -177,7 +183,7 @@ The PI is an undergraduate student in the Computer Science department. To mitiga
\item \textbf{Informed Consent Form (Wizard)}
\item \textbf{Informed Consent Form (Test Subject)}
\item \textbf{Recruitment Materials}
\item \textbf{Paper Specification (The "Geography Quiz")}
\item \textbf{Paper Specification (The "Interactive Storyteller")}
\item \textbf{Post-Study Questionnaire (SUS)}
\item \textbf{CITI Completion Report}
\end{itemize}