Rename \mainchapter => \chaptertoc

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

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+\subsubsection{Ranking}
+\label{3_ranks}
+
+\begin{subfigs}{3_ranks}{%
+        Experiment \#1. Boxplots of the ranking (lower is better) of each visual hand rendering
+        %
+        and pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment:
+        %
+        ** is \p[<]{0.01} and * is \p[<]{0.05}.
+    }
+    \subfig[0.24]{3-Ranks-Push}[Push Task]
+    \subfig[0.24]{3-Ranks-Grasp}[Grasp Task]
+\end{subfigs}
+
+\figref{3_ranks} shows the ranking of each visual hand rendering for the Push and Grasp tasks.
+%
+Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differences (\p[<]{0.001}).
+%
+Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (see \secref{3_metrics}):
+
+\begin{itemize}
+    \item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
+          %
+          Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
+          %
+          This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
+    \item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
+          %
+          No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
+          %
+          A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
+\end{itemize}