# Robotic Motion Learning Framework to Promote Social Engagement
## 3 Results
### Facial Measurement of Emotional State Results  
The researchers observed the rate with which participants responded positively to viewing new robot emotion primitives, as in Figure 6. For experimental group participants, the rate of positive facial expression emoting was compared before and after witnessing the imitation gesture. For control participants, the positive emoting rate was compared before and after the corresponding time stamp. For the control group, two participants displayed a decrease in the rate of positive facial emoting, two maintained the same rate, and one increased. For the experimental group, two participants displayed an increase in positive emoting, and four stayed constant. One experimental participant's rate could not be established due to an error in the video recording. A graphical representation can be seen below, in Figure 7. A full comparison of participants' emoting before and after imitation can be seen in Table 10, in Appendix A. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Group** & **Mean \(\Delta\)A** & **Std. Dev** & \(\Delta\)**Std. Error Mean** & \(n\) & **DoF** & \(t\)**-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline Control & 84.42 & 111.42 & 32.16 & 5 & 4 & 1.694 & 0.165515 \\ Experimental & \(-16.37\) & 81.62 & 23.56 & 7 & 6 & \(-0.53\) & 0.615143 \\ Experimental (No outlier) & 9.47 & 48.84 & 19.94 & 6 & 5 & 0.475 & 0.654811 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of the statistical significance for both groups’ bodily surface area data. Figure 6: Comparison between (**a**) a participant’s neutral expression and (**b**) a positive facial expression. Figure 7: Bar graph comparison of the change in facial emotional state of control and experimental groups after imitation. Participants in the experimental group emoted with the same or increased positivity after imitation. The control group had mixed responses, including a decrease in positivity. An unpaired \(t\)-test was performed to compare rate of positive facial expressions demonstrated by both the control and experimental groups. This can be seen below, in Table 3. Due to the low number of participants, the data was found to not be statistically significant, with a \(p\)-value of 0.46. It is important to note that a smile is not always reflective of a positive emotional state. Humans can also demonstrate fake smiles in uncomfortable situations. To verify whether the participants genuinely enjoyed their experiences playing with OP2, and whether our facial emotional data was truly reflective of their experiences, we reviewed their survey answers. In particular, three questions were analyzed: Q3.4 from the interim survey, and Q4.1 and Q4.5 from the post-survey. The full prompts can be seen below in Table 4. The entire survey, as well as all participants' individual answers, can be found in Appendix B, in Tables 11. The Likert scale answers from the control group participants all either increased in positivity or stayed the same between the interim- and post-survey. The average score for Q3.4 for the control group was a 4, which corresponds exactly with the Likert scale choice \"I Agree\". The average of Q4.1 and 4.5 for the control group was a 4.3. From this information, we can infer that the control participants' smiles were genuine, and the facial emotional state data for the control group is valid. The Likert scale answers for 5 of the 7 experimental group participants either increased in positivity or stayed the same between the interim- and post-survey. Of the two experimental group participants who stated a decrease in enjoyment, one was Participant G, whose video data was unavailable and therefore had no emotion rate data. The other participant who had decreased enjoyment had an emotion rate that stayed constant. Therefore, one of the six experimental group participants with emotion rate data may have had some instances of false smiles. However, the average score for Q3.4 for the experimental group was a 4.57, and the average of Q4.1 and 4.5 for the control group was a 4.64.