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

Remove "see" before section or figure reference

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-16 12:57:05 +02:00
parent 8705affcc4
commit 3b66b69fa1
21 changed files with 145 additions and 133 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex
View File

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Providing haptic feedback during free-hand manipulation in AR is not trivial, as
%
Moreover, it is important to leave the user capable of interacting with both virtual and real objects, avoiding the use of haptic interfaces that cover the fingertips or palm.
%
For this reason, it is often considered beneficial to move the point of application of the haptic rendering elsewhere on the hand.% (see \secref{haptics}).
For this reason, it is often considered beneficial to move the point of application of the haptic rendering elsewhere on the hand.% (\secref{haptics}).
This second experiment aims to evaluate whether a visuo-haptic hand rendering affects the performance and user experience of manipulation of virtual objects with bare hands in AR.
%
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ We considered the same two tasks as in Experiment \#1, described in \secref[visu
\item \emph{{Vibrotactile Positioning}:} the five positionings for providing vibrotactile hand rendering of the virtual contacts, as described in \secref{positioning}.
\item \emph{Contact Vibration Technique}: the two contact vibration techniques, as described in \secref{technique}.
\item \emph{visual Hand rendering}: two visual hand renderings from the first experiment, Skeleton (Skel) and None, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}; we considered Skeleton as it performed the best in terms of performance and perceived effectiveness and None as reference.
\item \emph{Target}: we considered target volumes located at NW and SW during the Push task, and at NE, NW, SW, and SE during the Grasp task (see \figref{tasks}); we considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
\item \emph{Target}: we considered target volumes located at NW and SW during the Push task, and at NE, NW, SW, and SE during the Grasp task (\figref{tasks}); we considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
\end{itemize}
To account for learning and fatigue effects, the positioning of the vibrotactile hand rendering (positioning) was counter-balanced using a balanced \numproduct{10 x 10} Latin square.

2
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex
View File

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetra
\figref{questions} shows the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.
%
Questionnaire results were analyzed using Aligned Rank Transform (ART) non-parametric analysis of variance (see \secref{metrics}).
Questionnaire results were analyzed using Aligned Rank Transform (ART) non-parametric analysis of variance (\secref{metrics}).
%
Statistically significant effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
%

2
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
\subfig[0.24]{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}%[\centering Distance between thumb and the other fingertips when grasping.]
\end{subfigswide}
Results were analyzed similarly as for the first experiment (see \secref{results}).
Results were analyzed similarly as for the first experiment (\secref{results}).
%
The LMM were fitted with the order of the five vibrotactile positionings (Order), the vibrotactile positionings (Positioning), the visual hand rendering (Hand), the {contact vibration techniques} (Technique), and the target volume position (Target), and their interactions as fixed effects and Participant as random intercept.

16
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
We evaluated sixteen visuo-haptic renderings of the hand, in the same two virtual object manipulation tasks in AR as in the first experiment, as the combination of two vibrotactile contact techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand with the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment.
In the Push task, vibrotactile haptic hand rendering has been proven beneficial with the Proximal positioning, which registered a low completion time, but detrimental with the Fingertips positioning, which performed worse (see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than the Proximal and Opposite (on the contralateral hand) positionings.
In the Push task, vibrotactile haptic hand rendering has been proven beneficial with the Proximal positioning, which registered a low completion time, but detrimental with the Fingertips positioning, which performed worse (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than the Proximal and Opposite (on the contralateral hand) positionings.
%
The cause might be the intensity of vibrations, which many participants found rather strong and possibly distracting when provided at the fingertips.
%
@@ -13,9 +13,9 @@ Another reason could be the visual impairment caused by the vibrotactile motors
We observed different strategies than in the first experiment for the two tasks.
%
During the Push task, participants made more and shorter contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}).
During the Push task, participants made more and shorter contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}).
%
During the Grasp task, participants pressed the cube 25~\% harder on average (see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}).
During the Grasp task, participants pressed the cube 25~\% harder on average (\figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}).
%
The Fingertips and Proximal positionings led to a slightly larger grip aperture than the others.
%
@@ -23,23 +23,23 @@ We think that the proximity of the vibrotactile rendering to the point of contac
%
This could also be the cause of the higher number of failed grasps or cube drops: indeed, we observed that the larger the grip aperture, the higher the number of contacts.
%
Consequently, the Fingertips positioning was slower (see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) and more prone to error (see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) than the Opposite and Nowhere positionings.
Consequently, the Fingertips positioning was slower (\figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) and more prone to error (\figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) than the Opposite and Nowhere positionings.
In both tasks, the Opposite positioning also seemed to be faster (see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than having no vibrotactile hand rendering (Nowhere positioning).
In both tasks, the Opposite positioning also seemed to be faster (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than having no vibrotactile hand rendering (Nowhere positioning).
%
However, participants also felt more workload (see \figref{questions}) with this positioning opposite to the site of the interaction.
However, participants also felt more workload (\figref{questions}) with this positioning opposite to the site of the interaction.
%
This result might mean that participants focused more on learning to interpret these sensations, which led to better performance in the long run.
Overall, many participants appreciated the vibrotactile hand renderings, commenting that they made the tasks more realistic and easier.
%
However, the closer to the contact point, the better the vibrotactile rendering was perceived (see \figref{questions}).
However, the closer to the contact point, the better the vibrotactile rendering was perceived (\figref{questions}).
%
This seemed inversely correlated with the performance, except for the Nowhere positioning, \eg both the Fingertips and Proximal positionings were perceived as more effective, useful, and realistic than the other positionings despite lower performance.
Considering the two tasks, no clear difference in performance or appreciation was found between the two contact vibration techniques.
%
While the majority of participants discriminated the two different techniques, only a minority identified them correctly (see \secref{technique_results}).
While the majority of participants discriminated the two different techniques, only a minority identified them correctly (\secref{technique_results}).
%
It seemed that the Impact technique was sufficient to provide contact information compared to the Distance technique, which provided additional feedback on interpenetration, as reported by participants.