Remove background folder

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

@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+\subsection{Ranking}
+\label{ranks}
+
+\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}):
+
+\begin{itemize}
+  \item \response{Push task ranking}: \level{Occlusion} was ranked lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.005}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03});
+    \level{Tips} was ranked lower than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}).
+    This good ranking of the \level{Skeleton} rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
+  \item \response{Grasp task ranking}: \level{Occlusion} was ranked lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.001}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.007});
+    No Hand was ranked lower than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.04}).
+    A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
+\end{itemize}
+
+\begin{subfigs}{results_ranks}{Boxplots of the ranking for each visual hand rendering.}[
+    Lower is better.
+    Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: ** is \pinf{0.01} and * is \pinf{0.05}.
+  ][
+  \item Push task ranking.
+  \item Grasp task ranking.
+  ]
+  \subfig[0.4]{results/Ranks-Push}
+  \subfig[0.4]{results/Ranks-Grasp}
+\end{subfigs}