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

13
4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -3,7 +3,8 @@
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
On the time to complete a trial,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{13.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{18.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{\level{Opposite}} was faster than \level{Fingertips} (\percent{+19}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\percent{+13}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Wrist} (\percent{+14}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\percent{+8}, \p{0.03}).
@@ -13,7 +14,8 @@ and \level{LF} was faster than \level{RB} (\p{0.03}).
\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{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{7.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Opposite} than with \level{Fingertips} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\percent{-17}, \pinf{0.001}), or \level{Wrist} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.002});
@@ -22,7 +24,8 @@ It was also easier on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{LB} (
\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{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{2.9}, \p{0.02}, see \figref{results/Grasp-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{62.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\percent{+7}, \p{0.01}).
@@ -31,8 +34,8 @@ but longer on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} or \level{LB} (\pinf{0.001}).
\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 indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{30.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{19.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was longer with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Proximal} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), or \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});