WIP visuo-haptic hand

3-manipulation/visual-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ We analyzed the two tasks separately.
 For each of them, we considered two independent, within-subject, variables:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item \factor{Hand}, consisting of the six possible visual hand renderings discussed in \secref{hands}: \level{None}, \level{Occlusion} (Occl), \level{Tips}, \level{Contour} (Cont), \level{Skeleton} (Skel), and \level{Mesh}.
-  \item \factor{Target}, consisting of the eight possible location of the target volume, named as the cardinal points and as shown in \figref{tasks}: right (\level{R}), right-back (\level{RB}), back (\level{B}), left-back (\level{LB}), left (\level{L}), left-front (\level{LF}), front (\level{F}) and right-front (\level{RF}).
+  \item \factor{Target}, consisting of the eight possible locations of the target volume, named from the participant's point of view and as shown in \figref{tasks}: right (\level{R}), right-back (\level{RB}), back (\level{B}), left-back (\level{LB}), left (\level{L}), left-front (\level{LF}), front (\level{F}) and right-front (\level{RF}).
 
 \end{itemize}
 Each condition was repeated three times.

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ On the contrary, the lack of visual hand constrained the participants to give mo
 Targets on the left (\level{L}, \level{LF}) and the right (\level{R}) sides had higher \response{Timer per Contact} than all the other targets (\p{0.005}).
 
 \begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the push task performance metrics for each visual hand rendering.}[
-    Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI
+    Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI
     and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
   ][
   \item Time to complete a trial.

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
 It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
 shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
 shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
-As for the \factor{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
+As for the \level{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
 The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.
 
 This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to partic
 The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (\level{R}, \level{RB}, \level{B}, \level{L}, \p{0.03}).
 
 \begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each visual hand rendering.}[
-    Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI
+    Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI
     and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
   ][
   \item Time to complete a trial.

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-3-ranks.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \subsection{Ranking}
 \label{ranks}
 
-\figref{results_ranks} shows the ranking of each visual \factor{Hand} rendering for the \factor{Push} and \factor{Grasp} tasks.
+\figref{results_ranks} shows the ranking of each visual \factor{Hand} rendering for the \level{Push} and \level{Grasp} tasks.
 Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
 Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (\secref{metrics}):
 

3-manipulation/visual-hand/4-discussion.tex

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
 
 We evaluated six visual hand renderings, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR.
 
-During the \factor{Push} task, the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
+During the \level{Push} task, the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
 Participants consistently used few and continuous contacts for all visual hand renderings (Fig. 3b), with only less than ten trials, carried out by two participants, quickly completed with multiple discrete touches.
-However, during the \factor{Grasp} task, despite no difference in \response{Completion Time}, providing no visible hand rendering (\level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings) led to more failed grasps or cube drops (\figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
+However, during the \level{Grasp} task, despite no difference in \response{Completion Time}, providing no visible hand rendering (\level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings) led to more failed grasps or cube drops (\figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
 Indeed, participants found the \level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings less effective (\figref{results/Ranks-Grasp}) and less precise (\figref{results_questions}).
 To understand whether the participants' previous experience might have played a role, we also carried out an additional statistical analysis considering \VR experience as an additional between-subjects factor, \ie \VR novices vs. \VR experts (\enquote{I use it every week}, see \secref{participants}).
 We found no statistically significant differences when comparing the considered metrics between \VR novices and experts.