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

54
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex
View File

@@ -4,42 +4,46 @@
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{push_tct}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
%
\level{Fingertips} was slower than \level{Proximal} (\qty{+11}{\%}, \p{0.01}) or \level{Opposite} (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
\level{Fingertips} was slower than \level{Proximal} (\percent{+11}, \p{0.01}) or \level{Opposite} (\percent{+12}, \p{0.03}).
There was no evidence of an advantage of \level{Proximal} or \level{Opposite} on \level{Nowhere}, nor a disadvantage of \level{Fingertips} on \level{Nowhere}.
%
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with \level{Proximal} and \level{Opposite}.
%
The \level{LB} target volume was also faster than the \level{LF} (\p{0.05}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{push_contacts_count}
On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
%
More contacts were made with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
More contacts were made with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\percent{+12}, \p{0.03}).
This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{push_time_per_contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects of %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and of Hand (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})%
but not of the Positioning \x Hand interaction.
%
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.005}), or \level{Nowhere} (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects of
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})%
but not of the \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Hand} interaction.
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001});
and shorter with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.005}), or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}).
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the \level{Fingertips} and \level{Proximal} positionings.
%
It was also shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-9}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
It was also shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-9}, \pinf{0.001}).
This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.
\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics.}[
Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI for each vibrotactile positioning (a, b and c) or visual hand rendering (d)
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.
\item Number of contacts with the cube.
\item Mean time spent on each contact.
\item Mean time spent on each contact.
]
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}
\end{subfigs}