From 398583e819e5074b86fe0096b36eb025067617e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Erwan Normand Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 23:01:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Amend 42f8202: Fix vhar textures results --- 3-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/3-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex b/3-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex index 12305ba..26cbad4 100644 --- a/3-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex +++ b/3-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex @@ -17,14 +17,14 @@ Several strategies were used, as some participants reported using vibration freq It should be noted that the task was rather difficult (\figref{results_questions}), as participants had no prior knowledge of the textures, there were no additional visual cues such as the shape of an object, and the term \enquote{roughness} had not been used by the experimenter prior to the \level{Ranking} task. The correspondence analysis (\figref{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}) highlighted that participants did indeed match visual and haptic textures primarily on the basis of their perceived roughness (\percent{60} of variance), which is in line with previous perception studies on real textures \cite{baumgartner2013visual} and virtual textures \cite{culbertson2014modeling}. -The rankings (\figref{results/ranking_mean_ci}) confirmed that the participants all perceived the roughness of haptic textures very similarly, but that there was less consensus for visual textures, which is also in line with roughness rankings for real haptic and visual textures \cite{bergmanntiest2007haptic}. +The rankings (\figref{results/rankings_modality}) confirmed that the participants all perceived the roughness of haptic textures very similarly, but that there was less consensus for visual textures, which is also in line with roughness rankings for real haptic and visual textures \cite{bergmanntiest2007haptic}. These results made it possible to identify and name groups of textures in the form of clusters (\figref{results_clusters}), and to construct confusion matrices between these clusters and between visual texture ranks with haptic clusters (\figref{results/haptic_visual_clusters_confusion_matrices}), showing that participants consistently identified and matched haptic and visual textures. \percent{30} of the matching variance of the correspondence analysis was also captured with a second dimension, opposing the roughest textures (\level{Metal Mesh}, \level{Sandpaper~100}), and to a lesser extent the smoothest (\level{Coffee Filter}, \level{Sandpaper~320}), with all other textures (\figref{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}). One hypothesis is that this dimension could be the perceived hardness (\secref[related_work]{hardness}) of the virtual materials, with \level{Metal Mesh} and smooth textures appearing harder than the other textures, whose granularity could have been perceived as bumps on the surface that could deform under finger pressure. Hardness is, with roughness, one of the main characteristics perceived by the vision and touch of real materials \cite{baumgartner2013visual,vardar2019fingertip}, but also on virtual haptic renderings \cite{culbertson2014modeling,degraen2019enhancing}. -The last visuo-haptic roughness ranking (\figref{results/ranking_mean_ci}) showed that both haptic and visual sensory information were well integrated as the resulting roughness ranking was being in between the two individual haptic and visual rankings. +The last visuo-haptic roughness ranking (\figref{results/rankings_texture}) showed that both haptic and visual sensory information were well integrated as the resulting roughness ranking was being in between the two individual haptic and visual rankings. Several strategies were reported: some participants first classified visually and then corrected with haptics, others classified haptically and then integrated visuals. While visual sensation did influence perception, as observed in previous haptic \AR studies \cite{punpongsanon2015softar,gaffary2017ar,fradin2023humans}, haptic sensation dominated here. This indicates that participants were more confident and relied more on the haptic roughness perception than on the visual roughness perception when integrating both in one coherent perception.