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

Add visuo-haptic-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-06-28 00:22:12 +02:00
parent aa6961230e
commit 0b2de2e078
31 changed files with 565 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

62
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-2-grasp.tex Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
\subsection{Grasp Task}
\label{sec:grasp}
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{sec: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}).
%
Opposite was faster than Fingertips (\qty{+19}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Proximal (\qty{+13}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Wrist (\qty{+14}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), and No Vibrations (\qty{+8}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
No Vibrations was faster than Fingertips (\qty{+11}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
SE was faster than NE (\pinf{0.001}), NW (\pinf{0.001}), and SW (\pinf{0.001});
%
and SW was faster than NE (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{sec: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 Opposite than with Fingertips (\qty{-26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Proximal (\qty{-17}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), or Wrist (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.002});
%
but more with Fingertips than with Wrist (\qty{+13}{\%}, \p{0.002}) or No Vibrations (\qty{+17}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
It was also easier on SW than on NE (\pinf{0.001}), NW (\p{0.006}), or SE (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{sec: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 Fingertips than with Opposite (\qty{+7}{\%}, \p{0.01}).
%
It was also shorter on SE than on NE, NW or SW (\pinf{0.001});
%
but longer on SW than on NE or NW (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
\label{sec: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}).
%
It was longer with Fingertips than with Proximal (\pinf{0.001}), Wrist (\pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), or No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
%
and longer with Proximal than with Wrist (\pinf{0.001}) or No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001}).
%
But, it was shorter with NE than with NW or SW (\pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with SE than with NW or SW (\pinf{0.001}).