# Robotic Motion Learning Framework to Promote Social Engagement
## 3 Results
### Participants' Perception of Robot Autonomy Results  
The full prompts can be seen in Figure 9, along with user responses to survey questions, some of which are listed in Table 6. The entire survey, as well as all participants' individual answers, can be found in Appendix B, in Tables A4-A11. As a group, the experimental group started and ended with a higher perception of autonomy than the control group did, as shown in Table 7. Although both groups gave repeat rankings for Q3.3 and Q4.4, the experimental group overall responded more positively to Q4.6, \"The robot paid attention to me\", than the control group. On an individual level, experimental group participants that saw the imitation move also had a more positive impression of the robot's autonomy than control participants did.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Question** & **Prompt** & **Section** \\ \hline
3.3 & “The robot pays attention to me.” & Interim-survey \\
4.4 & “The robot was interacting with me.” & Post-survey \\
4.6 & “The robot was paying attention to me.” & Post-survey \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: User-survey question high-lights. (Full survey questions are shown in Appendix B, in Tables A4-A7.)  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**User** & **Group** & **Mood Contagion Primitives before Imitation** & **Mood Contagion Primitives after Imitation** \\ \hline A & control & & angry, surprised \\ C & control & & angry \\ G & experimental & curious & (Data unavailable after curious) \\ H & experimental & sad, scared, curious & \\ I & experimental & curious & \\ J & experimental & imitation move & surprised \\ K & experimental & disgust, curious & angry \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Participants that displayed mood contagion for specific emotion primitives.  
Figure 8: Participants displaying mood contagion towards various OP2 emotion primitives.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Question** & **Prompt** & **Section** \\ \hline
3.3 & “The robot pays attention to me.” & Interim-survey \\
4.4 & “The robot was interacting with me.” & Post-survey \\
4.6 & “The robot was paying attention to me.” & Post-survey \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Summary of survey results focusing on robot autonomy, comparing how individual responses changed after the imitation session.  
An unpaired \(t\)-test was performed on the results of each of the three survey questions. These can be found in Table 8. The results of the interim-survey question 3.3, \"The robot pays attention to me\", was found to have a \(t\)-value of \(-1.208\) and a \(p\)-value of 0.1275. There was no statistical significance between the answers of both groups for this question. The results of post-survey question 4.4, \"The robot was interacting with me\", had a \(t\)-value of \(-2.797\) and a \(p\)-value of 0.0094. This means that there was a significant difference in the survey responses between groups for this question. Finally, question 4.6, \"The robot was paying attention to me\" in the post-survey section had a \(t\)-value of \(-1.767\) and a \(p\)-value of 0.0538. While the difference between answers for this question was technically found not significant, it was very close to the significance threshold of 0.05.  
In summary, the experimental and control groups did not significantly differ in opinion (Q3.3) during the interim-survey, which was pre-imitation. However, post-imitation, the two groups had one survey question where their difference in opinion about robot autonomy was nearly significant (Q4.6), and one that was clearly significantly (Q4.4).