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

48
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -4,56 +4,42 @@
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{grasp_tct}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{3990}{13.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{3}{3990}{18.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
\level{\level{Opposite}} was faster than \level{Fingertips} (\qty{+19}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\qty{+13}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Wrist} (\qty{+14}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\qty{+8}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
\level{Nowhere} was faster than \level{Fingertips} (\qty{+11}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{13.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{18.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{\level{Opposite}} was faster than \level{Fingertips} (\percent{+19}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\percent{+13}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Wrist} (\percent{+14}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\percent{+8}, \p{0.03}).
\level{Nowhere} was faster than \level{Fingertips} (\percent{+11}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{RF} was faster than \level{RB} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{LB} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
%
and \level{LF} was faster than \level{RB} (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{grasp_contacts_count}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{3}{3990}{7.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Opposite} than with \level{Fingertips} (\qty{-26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\qty{-17}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), or \level{Wrist} (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.002});
%
but more with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\qty{+13}{\%}, \p{0.002}) or \level{Nowhere} (\qty{+17}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{7.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Opposite} than with \level{Fingertips} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\percent{-17}, \pinf{0.001}), or \level{Wrist} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.002});
but more with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{+13}, \p{0.002}) or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{+17}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was also easier on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{LB} (\p{0.006}), or \level{RF} (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{grasp_time_per_contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{3990}{2.9}, \p{0.02}, see \figref{results/Grasp-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{3}{3990}{62.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\qty{+7}{\%}, \p{0.01}).
%
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{2.9}, \p{0.02}, see \figref{results/Grasp-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{62.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\percent{+7}, \p{0.01}).
It was also shorter on \level{RF} than on \level{RB}, \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
%
but longer on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} or \level{LB} (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
\label{grasp_grip_aperture}
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
statistically significant effects: %
Positioning (\anova{4}{3990}{30.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{3}{3990}{19.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{30.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{19.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was longer with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Proximal} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), or \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
%
and longer with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}) or \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
%
But, it was shorter with \level{RB} than with \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with \level{RF} than with \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001}).