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

Visual hand {rendering => augmentation}

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-11-04 14:37:23 +01:00
parent 613e683902
commit 5dc3e33a15
15 changed files with 93 additions and 79 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

18
4-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -3,14 +3,16 @@
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect
On the time to complete a trial,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated one statistically significant effect
of \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{34.3}, \pinf{0.001})
but not of \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{1.7}, \p{0.1}).
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.
\paragraph{Contacts}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects:
On the number of contacts,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{4.9}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{20.0}, \pinf{0.001}).
@@ -23,7 +25,8 @@ Targets on the back and left were more difficult (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \le
\paragraph{Time per Contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects:
On the mean time spent on each contact,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{9.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{5.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
@@ -37,21 +40,20 @@ This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volum
\paragraph{Grip Aperture}
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
statistically significant effects:
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts and random slopes for \factor{Hand} indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{19}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3270}{4.1}, \pinf{0.001}).
\footnote{Note that the best converging \LMM (with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion value) had a by-participant random intercept (like all the other models in this study) and a by-participant random slope for the \factor{Hand} factor. The results reported are from this model, which explains the different degrees of freedom from the other models.}
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Occlusion} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Contour} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
%shorter with \level{Tips} than with \level{Occlusion} (\p{0.008}), \level{Contour} (\p{0.006}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001});
%and shorter with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
This result is an evidence of the lack of confidence of participants with no visual hand rendering: they grasped the cube more to secure it.
This result is an evidence of the lack of confidence of participants with no visual hand augmentation: they grasped the cube more to secure it.
%The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to participants, maybe because it was the closest to the real hand.
The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (\level{R}, \level{RB}, \level{B}, \level{L}, \p{0.03}).
\begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each visual hand rendering.}[
\begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each visual hand augmentation.}[
Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI
and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
][