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

Fix visual-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-24 22:29:49 +02:00
parent a0c12fb2de
commit 5ea0d208ae
17 changed files with 258 additions and 363 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

89
3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -5,66 +5,67 @@
\label{grasp_tct}
On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect %
of Target (\anova{7}{2868}{37.2}, \pinf{0.001}) %
but not of Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{1.8}, \p{0.1}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
%
Targets on the back and the left (N, NW, and W) were slower than targets on the front (SW, S, and SE, \p{0.003}) {except for} NE (back-right) which was also fast.
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}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{21.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
Less contacts were made with Tips than with None (\qty{-13}{\%}, \p{0.02}) and Occlusion (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.004});
%
and less with Mesh than with None (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.006}) and Occlusion (\qty{-17}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
%
This result suggests that having no visible visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
%
But, surprisingly, only Tips and Mesh were statistically significantly better, not Contour nor Skeleton.
%
Targets on the back and left were more difficult (N, NW, and W) than targets on the front (SW, S, and SE, \pinf{0.001}).
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{21.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\qty{-13}{\%}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.004});
and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\qty{-17}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
This result suggests that having no visible visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically significantly better, not \level{Contour} nor \level{Skeleton}.
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}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
It was shorter with None than with Tips (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Skeleton (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and Mesh (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
%
shorter with Occlusion than with Tips (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Skeleton (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and Mesh (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
%
shorter with Contour than with Tips (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
As for the Push task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
%
The Tips rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.
%
This time was the shortest on the front S than on the other target volumes (\pinf{0.001}).
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.001});
shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-10}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.04});
shorter with \level{Contour} than with \level{Tips} (\qty{-8}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
As for the \factor{Push} task, the lack of visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
The \level{Tips} rendering seemed to provide one of the best feedback for the grasping, maybe thanks to the fact that it provides information about both position and rotation of the tracked fingertips.
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}
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
statistically significant effects: %
Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{35.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{3.7}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
It was shorter with None than with Occlusion (\pinf{0.001}), Tips (\pinf{0.001}), Contour (\pinf{0.001}), Skeleton (\pinf{0.001}) and Mesh (\pinf{0.001});
%
shorter with Tips than with Occlusion (\p{0.008}), Contour (\p{0.006}) and Mesh (\pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with Skeleton than with Mesh (\pinf{0.001}).
%
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{35.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{3.7}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Occlusion} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\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.
%
The Mesh rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to participants, maybe because it was the closest to the real hand.
%
The Grip Aperture was longer on SE (bottom-right) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (E, NE, N, W, \p{0.03}).
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. }[
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.
\item Distance between thumb and the other fingertips when grasping.
]
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}
\end{subfigs}