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

Better question results in manipulation part

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-12-26 19:28:39 +01:00
parent 202455e9e8
commit 0cde049bfc
2 changed files with 18 additions and 19 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
4-manipulation/visual-hand/3-4-questions.tex
View File

@@ -3,14 +3,14 @@
\figref{results_questions} presents the questionnaire results for each visual hand augmentation.
Friedman tests indicated that all questions had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used each question results:
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment are reported (results are shown as mean $\pm$ standard deviation):
\begin{itemize}
\item \response{Difficulty}: \level{Occlusion} was considered more difficult than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.01}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03}).
\item \response{Fatigue}: \level{None} was found more fatiguing than \level{Mesh} (\p{0.04}); And \level{Occlusion} more than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Precision}: \level{None} was considered less precise than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}); And \level{Occlusion} more than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Performance}: \level{Occlusion} was lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03}).
\item \response{Efficiency}: \level{Occlusion} was found less efficient than \level{Contour} (\p{0.01}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Rating}: \level{Occlusion} was rated lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.03}).
\item \response{Difficulty}: \level{Occlusion} (\num{4.7 \pm 1.5}) was considered more difficult than \level{Contour} (\num{3.4 \pm 1.6}, \p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\num{3.3 \pm 1.3}, \p{0.01}), and \level{Mesh} (\num{3.3 \pm 1.3}, \p{0.03}). No difference evidences were found for \level{None} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.9}) or \level{Tips} (\num{4.3 \pm 1.7}).
\item \response{Fatigue}: \level{None} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.3}) was found more fatiguing than \level{Mesh} (\num{3.6 \pm 1.3}, \p{0.04}); And \level{Occlusion} (\num{5.0 \pm 1.4}) more than \level{Skeleton} (\num{3.7 \pm 1.4}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}). No difference evidences were found for \level{Tips} (\num{4.5 \pm 1.6}) or \level{Contour} (\num{3.9 \pm 1.5}).
\item \response{Precision}: \level{None} (\num{2.8 \pm 1.8}) was considered less precise than \level{Skeleton} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.1}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.6}, \p{0.02}); And \level{Occlusion} (\num{2.8 \pm 1.7}) more than \level{Contour} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.8}, \p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}). No difference evidences were found for \level{Tips} (\num{3.8 \pm 1.7}).
\item \response{Performance}: \level{Occlusion} (\num{3.0 \pm 1.5}) was lower than \level{Contour} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.6}, \p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.4}, \p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.4}, \p{0.03}). No difference evidences were found for \level{None} (\num{3.4 \pm 1.8}) or \level{Tips} (\num{4.2 \pm 1.6}).
\item \response{Efficiency}: \level{Occlusion} (\num{3.2 \pm 1.7}) was found less efficient than \level{Contour} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.7}, \p{0.01}), \level{Skeleton} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.4}, \p{0.02}), and \level{Mesh} (\num{4.8 \pm 1.3}, \p{0.02}). No difference evidences were found for \level{None} (\num{3.5 \pm 1.8}) or \level{Tips} (\num{4.3 \pm 1.5}).
\item \response{Rating}: \level{Occlusion} (\num{2.9 \pm 1.6}) was rated lower than \level{Contour} (\num{5.2 \pm 1.9}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Skeleton} (\num{4.9 \pm 1.9}, \p{0.03}). No difference evidences were found for \level{None} (\num{3.5 \pm 2.0}),\level{Tips} (\num{3.6 \pm 2.1}) or \level{Mesh} (\num{4.6 \pm 1.6}).
\end{itemize}
In summary, \level{Occlusion} was worse than \level{Skeleton} for all questions, and worse than \level{Contour} and \level{Mesh} on 5 over 6 questions.

23
4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex
View File

@@ -16,36 +16,35 @@ Although the \level{Distance} technique provided additional feedback on the inte
The results of each question were analyzed using non-parametric \ANOVA on an \ART model.
Statistically significant effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and \ART contrasts procedure for interaction effects.
Only significant results are reported.
Only significant tests are reported, and results are shown as mean $\pm$ standard deviation.
\paragraph{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
\label{vibration_ratings}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.01}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.007}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} (\num{5.2 \pm 1.2}) and \level{Proximal} (\num{5.2 \pm 1.1}) more than \level{Wrist} (\num{4.3 \pm 1.4}, \p{0.01}), \level{Opposite} (\num{3.4 \pm 1.5}, \pinf{0.01}\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\num{2.8 \pm 1.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{Wrist} was also preferred over \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
\paragraph{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
\label{positioning_hand}
There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.003}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Skeleton} more than \level{No Hand} (\pinf{0.001}).
There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}), but no interaction effect.
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} (\num{5.3 \pm 1.4}) and \level{Proximal} (\num{5.2 \pm 1.0}) more than \level{Wrist} (\num{4.5 \pm 1.2}, \p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\num{3.8 \pm 1.6}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\num{3.2 \pm 1.7}, \pinf{0.001});
And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
\level{Skeleton} (\num{4.7 \pm 1.6}) was also preferred over \level{No Hand} (\num{4.1 \pm 1.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
\paragraph{Workload}
\label{workload}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Opposite} more fatiguing than \level{Fingertips} (\p{0.01}), \level{Proximal} (\p{0.003}), and \level{Wrist} (\p{0.02}).
Participants found \level{Opposite} (\num{4.1 \pm 1.9}) more fatiguing than \level{Fingertips} (\num{2.9 \pm 1.7}, \p{0.01}), \level{Proximal} (\num{3.0 \pm 1.1}, \p{0.003}), and \level{Wrist} (\num{3.2 \pm 1.5}, \p{0.02}).
No evidence of a difference of \level{Nowhere} (\num{3.8 \pm 2.3}) on the other positioning was found.
\paragraph{Usefulness}
\label{usefulness}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}, see \figref{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most useful, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.02}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
Participants found \level{Fingertips} (\num{5.7 \pm 1.0}) the most useful, more than \level{Proximal} (\num{5.3 \pm 1.1}, \p{0.02}), \level{Wrist} (\num{4.5 \pm 1.2}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\num{3.8 \pm 1.8}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\num{2.2 \pm 1.8}, \pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.008}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.008}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.004}).
@@ -54,7 +53,7 @@ And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.004}).
\label{realism}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most realistic, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.05}), \level{Wrist} (\p{0.004}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
Participants found \level{Fingertips} (\num{5.1 \pm 1.2}) the most realistic, more than \level{Proximal} (\num{4.7 \pm 1.3}, \p{0.05}), \level{Wrist} (\num{3.8 \pm 1.5}, \p{0.004}), \level{Opposite} (\num{3.2 \pm 1.8}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\num{2.2 \pm 2.1}, \pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.03}).