Fix vhar textures results

3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex

@@ -9,8 +9,8 @@
 
 \figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix} shows the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task with the visual textures and the proportion of haptic texture selected in response, \ie the proportion of times the corresponding \response{Haptic Texture} was selected in response to the presentation of the corresponding \factor{Visual Texture}.
 To determine which haptic textures were selected most often, the repetitions of the trials were first aggregated by counting the number of selections per participant for each (\factor{Visual Texture}, \response{Haptic Texture}) pair.
-An \ANOVA based on mixed Poisson regression indicated a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the interaction \factor{Visual Texture} \x\ \response{Haptic Texture} (\chisqr{64}{180}{414}, \pinf{0.001}).
-No overdispersion was detected on the Poisson regression.
+\comans{JG}{For the two-sample Chi-Squared tests in the matching task, the number of samples reported is 540 due to 20 participants conducting 3 trials for 9 textures each. However, this would only hold true if the repetitions per participant would be independent and not correlated (and then, one could theoretically also run 10 participants with 6 trials each, or 5 participants with 12 trials each). If they are not independent, this would lead to an artificial inflated sample size and Type I error. If the trials are not independent (please double check), I suggest either aggregating data on the participant level or to use alternative models that account for the within-subject correlation (as was done in other chapters).}{Data of the three confusion matrices have been aggregated on the participant level and analyzed using a Poisson regression.}
+An \ANOVA based on a Poisson regression (no overdispersion was detected) indicated a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the interaction \factor{Visual Texture} \x \response{Haptic Texture} (\chisqr{64}{180}{414}, \pinf{0.001}).
 Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey's \HSD test then indicated there was statistically significant differences for the following visual textures:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item With \level{Sandpaper~320}, \level{Coffee Filter} was more selected than the other haptic textures (\ztest{3.4}, \pinf{0.05} each) except \level{Plastic Mesh~1} and \level{Terra Cotta}.
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey's \HSD test then indicated there w
   \item With \level{Coffee Filter}, \level{Coffee Filter} was more selected than the others (\ztest{4.0}, \pinf{0.01} each) except \level{Terra Cotta}.
 \end{itemize}
 
-\fig[0.85]{results/matching_confusion_matrix}{Confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task results.}[%
+\fig[0.85]{results/matching_confusion_matrix}{Confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task results.}[
   With the presented visual textures as columns and the selected haptic texture in proportion as rows.
   The number in a cell is the proportion of times the corresponding haptic texture was selected in response to the presentation of the corresponding visual texture.
   The diagonal represents the expected correct answers.
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ No statistical significant effect of \factor{Visual Texture} was found (\anova{8
 \figref{results/rankings_modality} presents the results of the three rankings of the haptic textures alone, the visual textures alone, and the visuo-haptic texture pairs.
 For each ranking, a Friedman test was performed with post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
 
-\fig[1]{results/rankings_modality}{Means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI of the \level{Ranking} task results for each \factor{Modality}.}[%
+\fig[1]{results/rankings_modality}{Means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI of the \level{Ranking} task results for each \factor{Modality}.}[
   Shown for the haptic textures alone (left), the visual textures alone (center) and the visuo-haptic textures pairs (right).
   The order of the visual textures on the x-axis differs between modalities.
   A lower rank means that the texture was considered rougher, a higher rank means smoother.
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ The \textit{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking} was on average highly similar to the
 A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that this difference was statistically significant (\wilcoxon{190}, \p{0.002}).
 These results indicate that the two haptic and visual modalities were integrated together, the resulting roughness ranking being between the two rankings of the modalities alone, but with haptics predominating.
 
-\fig[1]{results/rankings_texture}{Means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI of the \level{Ranking} task results for each \factor{Visual Texture}.}[%
+\fig[1]{results/rankings_texture}{Means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI of the \level{Ranking} task results for each \factor{Visual Texture}.}[
   A lower rank means that the texture was considered rougher, a higher rank means smoother.
 ]
 
@@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ The first dimension was similar to the rankings (\figref{results/rankings_textur
 It seems that the second dimension opposed textures that were perceived as hard with those perceived as softer, as also reported by participants.
 Stiffness is indeed an important perceptual dimension of a material (\secref[related_work]{hardness}).
 
-\fig[1]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{Correspondence analysis of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.}[%
+\fig[1]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{Correspondence analysis of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.}[
   The closer the haptic and visual textures are, the more similar they were judged.
   The first dimension (horizontal axis) explains \percent{60} of the variance, the second dimension (vertical axis) explains \percent{29} of the variance.
   The confusion matrix is shown in \figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix}.
@@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ They are also easily identifiable on the visual ranking results, which also made
 \paragraph{Confusion Matrices of Clusters}
 
 Based on these results, two alternative confusion matrices were constructed.
-Similarly to \secref{results_matching}, an \ANOVA based on mixed Poisson regression was performed for each confusion matrix on the number of selections, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey's \HSD test. No overdispersion was detected on the Poisson regressions.
+Similarly to \secref{results_matching}, an \ANOVA based on a Poisson regression was performed for each confusion matrix on the number of selections, followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey's \HSD test. No overdispersion was detected on the Poisson regressions.
 
 \figref{results/haptic_visual_clusters_confusion_matrices} (left) shows the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task with visual texture clusters and the proportion of haptic texture clusters selected in response.
-There was a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the interaction visual texture cluster \x\ haptic texture cluster (\chisqr{12}{180}{324}, \pinf{0.001}), and statistically significant differences for the following visual clusters:
+There was a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the interaction visual texture cluster \x haptic texture cluster (\chisqr{12}{180}{324}, \pinf{0.001}), and statistically significant differences for the following visual clusters:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item With \enquote{Roughest}, the haptic cluster \enquote{Roughest} was the most selected (\ztest{4.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
   \item With \enquote{Rougher}, \enquote{Smoothest} was the least selected (\ztest{-4.0}, \pinf{0.001}) and \enquote{Rougher} more than \enquote{Smoother} (\ztest{-3.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ There was a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the
 \end{itemize}
 
 \figref{results/haptic_visual_clusters_confusion_matrices} (right) shows the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task with visual texture ranks and the proportion of haptic texture clusters selected in response.
-There was a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the visual texture rank \x\ haptic texture cluster interaction (\chisqr{24}{180}{340}, \pinf{0.001}), and statistically significant differences for the following visual texture ranks:
+There was a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the visual texture rank \x haptic texture cluster interaction (\chisqr{24}{180}{340}, \pinf{0.001}), and statistically significant differences for the following visual texture ranks:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item Rank 0: the haptic cluster \enquote{Roughest} was the most selected (\ztest{4.5}, \pinf{0.001}).
   \item Ranks 1, 2 and 3: \enquote{Smoothest} was the least selected (\ztest{-3.0}, \p{0.04}).