erwan/phd-thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

WIP visuo-haptic hand

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-25 22:09:12 +02:00
parent e7f732bf3d
commit 08c57b6941
25 changed files with 169 additions and 289 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
2-perception/ar-textures/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@
The number in a cell is the proportion of times the corresponding haptic texture was selected in response to the presentation of the corresponding visual texture.
The diagonal represents the expected correct answers.
Holm-Bonferroni adjusted binomial test results are marked in bold when the proportion is higher than chance (\ie more than 11~\%, \pinf{0.05}).
\item Means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI of the three rankings of the haptic textures alone, the visual textures alone, and the visuo-haptic texture pairs.
\item Means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI of the three rankings of the haptic textures alone, the visual textures alone, and the visuo-haptic texture pairs.
A lower rank means that the texture was considered rougher, a higher rank means smoother.
]
\subfig[0.58]{results/matching_confusion_matrix}%

2
2-perception/xr-perception/3-experiment.tex
View File

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
\subfig[0.32]{experiment/virtual}
\end{subfigs}
Our visuo-haptic rendering system, described in \secref{method}, allows free exploration of virtual vibrotactile textures on tangible surfaces directly touched with the bare finger to simulate roughness augmentation, while the visual rendering of the hand and environment can be controlled to be in \AR or \VR.
The visuo-haptic rendering system, described in \secref[vhar_system]{method}, allows free exploration of virtual vibrotactile textures on tangible surfaces directly touched with the bare finger to simulate roughness augmentation, while the visual rendering of the hand and environment can be controlled to be in \AR or \VR.
%
The user study aimed to investigate the effect of visual hand rendering in \AR or \VR on the perception of roughness texture augmentation. % of a touched tangible surface.
%

8
2-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex
View File

@@ -12,14 +12,14 @@ Only the best converging models are reported, with the lowest Akaike Information
%
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Tukey's \HSD test.
%
Each estimate is reported with its 95\% \CI as follows: \ci{\textrm{lower limit}}{\textrm{upper limit}}.
Each estimate is reported with its \percent{95} \CI as follows: \ci{\textrm{lower limit}}{\textrm{upper limit}}.
\subsubsection{Discrimination Accuracy}
\label{discrimination_accuracy}
A \GLMM was adjusted to the \response{Texture Choice} in the \TIFC vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task, with by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes, and a probit link function (\figref{results/trial_predictions}).
%
The \PSEs (\figref{results/trial_pses}) and \JNDs (\figref{results/trial_jnds}) for each visual rendering and their respective differences were estimated from the model, along with their corresponding 95\% \CI, using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure (1000 samples).
The \PSEs (\figref{results/trial_pses}) and \JNDs (\figref{results/trial_jnds}) for each visual rendering and their respective differences were estimated from the model, along with their corresponding \percent{95} \CI, using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure (1000 samples).
%
A \PSE represents the estimated amplitude difference at which the comparison texture was perceived as rougher than the reference texture 50\% of the time. %, \ie it is the accuracy of participants in discriminating vibrotactile roughness.
%
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ The \level{Real} rendering had the lowest \JND (\percent{26} \ci{23}{29}), the \
All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
\begin{subfigs}{discrimination_accuracy}{Results of the vibrotactile texture roughness discrimination task. }[
Curves represent predictions from the \GLMM model (probit link function), and points are estimated marginal means with non-parametric bootstrap 95\% confidence intervals.
Curves represent predictions from the \GLMM model (probit link function), and points are estimated marginal means with non-parametric bootstrap \percent{95} confidence intervals.
][
\item Proportion of trials in which the comparison texture was perceived as rougher than the reference texture, as a function of the amplitude difference between the two textures and the visual rendering.
\item Estimated \PSE of each visual rendering.
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant: \level{Real} \vs \level
%This means that within the same time window on the same surface, participants explored the comparison texture on average at a greater distance and at a higher speed when in the real environment without visual representation of the hand (\level{Real} condition) than when in \VR (\level{Virtual} condition).
\begin{subfigs}{results_finger}{Results of the performance metrics for the rendering condition. }[
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI, with Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI, with Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
][
\item Response time at the end of a trial.
\item Distance travelled by the finger in a trial.