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

36
3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-3-ranks.tex
View File

@@ -1,6 +1,19 @@
\subsection{Ranking}
\label{ranks}
\figref{results_ranks} shows the ranking of each visual \factor{Hand} rendering for the \factor{Push} and \factor{Grasp} tasks.
Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (\secref{metrics}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \response{Push task ranking}: \level{Occlusion} was ranked lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.005}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03});
\level{Tips} was ranked lower than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}).
This good ranking of the \level{Skeleton} rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
\item \response{Grasp task ranking}: \level{Occlusion} was ranked lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.001}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.007});
No Hand was ranked lower than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.04}).
A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
\end{itemize}
\begin{subfigs}{results_ranks}{Boxplots of the ranking for each visual hand rendering. }[
Lower is better.
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: ** is \pinf{0.01} and * is \pinf{0.05}.
@@ -8,25 +21,6 @@
\item Push task ranking.
\item Grasp task ranking.
]
\subfig[0.24]{results/Ranks-Push}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Ranks-Grasp}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Ranks-Push}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Ranks-Grasp}
\end{subfigs}
\figref{results_ranks} shows the ranking of each visual hand rendering for the Push and Grasp tasks.
%
Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
%
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (\secref{metrics}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
%
Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
%
This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
\item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
%
No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
%
A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
\end{itemize}