Typo visual hand

3-manipulation/visual-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ Participants also rated each visual hand rendering individually on six questions
   \item \response{Difficulty}: How difficult were the tasks?
   \item \response{Fatigue}: How fatiguing (mentally and physically) were the tasks?
   \item \response{Precision}: How precise were you in performing the tasks?
+  \item \response{Performance}: How successful were you in performing the tasks? %
   \item \response{Efficiency}: How fast/efficient do you think you were in performing the tasks?
   \item \response{Rating}: How much do you like each visual hand?
 \end{itemize}

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 \subsection{Push Task}
 \label{push}
 
-\subsubsection{Completion Time}
-\label{push_tct}
+\paragraph{Completion Time}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -14,8 +13,7 @@ Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
 (2) back and front \level{RB}, \level{F}, and \level{RF} were slower (\p{0.003});
 and (3) back \level{B} and \level{LB} targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
 
-\subsubsection{Contacts}
-\label{push_contacts_count}
+\paragraph{Contacts}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -27,8 +25,7 @@ This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicate
 
 Targets on the left (\level{L}, \level{LF}) and the right (\level{R}) were easier to reach than the back ones (\level{B}, \level{LB}, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
-\label{push_time_per_contact}
+\paragraph{Time per Contact}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex

@@ -1,16 +1,14 @@
 \subsection{Grasp Task}
 \label{grasp}
 
-\subsubsection{Completion Time}
-\label{grasp_tct}
+\paragraph{Completion Time}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect %
 of \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{37.2}, \pinf{0.001}) %
 but not of \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{1.8}, \p{0.1}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
 Targets on the back and the left (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \level{L}) were slower than targets on the front (\level{LF}, \level{F}, and \level{RF}, \p{0.003}) {except for} \level{RB} (back-right) which was also fast.
 
-\subsubsection{Contacts}
-\label{grasp_contacts_count}
+\paragraph{Contacts}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -23,8 +21,7 @@ But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically signifi
 
 Targets on the back and left were more difficult (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \level{L}) than targets on the front (\level{LF}, \level{F}, and \level{RF}, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
-\label{grasp_time_per_contact}
+\paragraph{Time per Contact}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
 \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -38,8 +35,7 @@ The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the gr
 
 This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
 
-\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
-\label{grasp_grip_aperture}
+\paragraph{Grip Aperture}
 
 On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
 statistically significant effects: %

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

@@ -27,8 +27,8 @@ Each visual hand rendering, except for \level{Occlusion}, had simultaneously rec
   \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Difficulty}
   \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Fatigue}
   \par
-  \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Performance}
   \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Precision}
+  \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Performance}
   \par
   \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Efficiency}
   \subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Rating}

3-manipulation/visual-hand/5-conclusion.tex

@@ -1,18 +1,17 @@
 \section{Conclusion}
 \label{conclusion}
 
-In this chapter, we addressed the challenge of touching, grasping and manipulating \VOs directly with the hand in immersive \OST-\AR by providing and evaluating visual renderings as hand augmentations.
+In this chapter, we addressed the challenge of touching, grasping and manipulating \VOs directly with the hand in immersive \OST-\AR by providing and evaluating visual renderings as hand augmentation.
 Superimposed on the user's hand, these visual renderings provide feedback from the virtual hand, which tracks the real hand, and simulates the interaction with \VOs as a proxy.
 We first selected and compared the six most popular visual hand renderings used to interact with \VOs in \AR.
 Then, in a user study with 24 participants and an immersive \OST-\AR headset, we evaluated the effect of these six visual hand renderings on the user performance and experience in two representative manipulation tasks.
 
-Our results showed that a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand improved the performance, perceived effectiveness and confidence of participants compared to none.
-A skeleton rendering, providing a detailed view of the tracked joints and phalanges while not hiding the real hand, was the most performant and effective.
+Our results showed that a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand improved the performance, perceived effectiveness and confidence of participants compared to no rendering.
+A skeleton rendering, which provided a detailed view of the tracked joints and phalanges while not hiding the real hand, was the most performant and effective.
 The contour and mesh renderings were found to mask the real hand, while the tips rendering was controversial.
-The occlusion rendering too much tracking latency to be effective.
+The occlusion rendering had too much tracking latency to be effective.
 This is consistent with similar manipulation studies in \VR and in non-immersive \VST-\AR setups.
 
-This study suggests that a \ThreeD visual hand rendering is important in \AR when interacting through a virtual hand technique.
-It seems particularly required for interaction tasks that involves precise movements of the fingers in relation to virtual content, such as \ThreeD windows, buttons and sliders, or stacking and assembly tasks.
-A minimal but detailed rendering of the hand that does not hide the real hand, like the skeleton rendering we evaluated, seems to be the best compromise between provided feedback and effectiveness.
-Still, users should be able to choose and adapt the visual hand rendering to their preferences and needs.
+This study suggests that a \ThreeD visual hand rendering is important in \AR when interacting with a virtual hand technique, particularly when it involves precise finger movements in relation to virtual content, \eg \ThreeD windows, buttons and sliders, or more complex tasks, such as stacking or assembly.
+A minimal but detailed rendering of the hand that does not hide the real hand, such as the skeleton rendering we evaluated, seems to be the best compromise between the richness and effectiveness of the feedback.
+%Still, users should be able to choose and adapt the visual hand rendering to their preferences and needs.