Fix visual-hand chapter

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

@@ -5,49 +5,51 @@
 \label{push_tct}
 
 On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
-Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
-and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{5.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
-%
-Skeleton was the fastest, more than None (\qty{+18}{\%}, \p{0.005}), Occlusion (\qty{+26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Tips (\qty{+22}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), and Contour (\qty{+20}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
-%
+\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
+\level{Skeleton} was the fastest, more than \level{None} (\percent{+18}, \p{0.005}), \level{Occlusion} (\percent{+26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\percent{+22}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Contour} (\percent{+20}, \p{0.001}).
+
 Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
-%
-(1) sides E, W, and SW targets were the fastest;
-%
-(2) back and front NE, S, and SE were slower (\p{0.003});
-%
-and (3) back N and NW targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
+(1) sides \level{R}, \level{L}, and \level{LF} targets were the fastest;
+(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}
 
 On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
-Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
-and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{27.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
-%
-\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} shows the Contacts for each Hand.
-%
-Less contacts were made with Skeleton than with None (\qty{-23}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Occlusion (\qty{-26}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Tips (\qty{-18}{\%}, \p{0.004}), and Contour (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.02});
-%
-and less with Mesh than with Occlusion (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.04}).
-%
+\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{27.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
+
+Less contacts were made with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{None} (\percent{-23}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\percent{-18}, \p{0.004}), and \level{Contour} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.02});
+and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-14}, \p{0.04}).
 This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicates a smoother ability to push and rotate properly the cube into the target, as one would probably do with a real cube.
-%
-Targets on the left (W) and the right (E, SW) were easier to reach than the back ones (N, NW, \pinf{0.001}).
+
+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}
 
 On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
-Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
-and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{19.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
-%
-It was shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}) and Mesh (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.03});
-%
-and shorter with Occlusion than with Tips (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.002}), Contour (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.001}), Skeleton (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.001}), and Mesh (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
-%
+\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{19.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
+
+It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-10}, \pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.03});
+and shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-10}, \p{0.002}), \level{Contour} (\percent{-10}, \p{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-14}, \p{0.001}), and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.03}).
 This result suggests that users pushed the virtual cube with more confidence with a visible visual hand rendering.
-%
 On the contrary, the lack of visual hand constrained the participants to give more attention to the cube's reactions.
-%
-Targets on the left (W, SW) and the right (E) sides had higher Timer per Contact than all the other targets (\p{0.005}).
+
+Targets on the left (\level{L}, \level{LF}) and the right (\level{R}) sides had higher \response{Timer per Contact} than all the other targets (\p{0.005}).
+
+\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the push task performance metrics for each visual hand rendering. }[
+    Geometric means with bootstrap 95~\% \CI
+    and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
+  ][
+  \item Time to complete a trial.
+  \item Number of contacts with the cube.
+  \item Time spent on each contact.
+  ]
+  \subfig[0.32]{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
+  \subfig[0.32]{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}
+  \subfig[0.32]{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
+\end{subfigs}