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

55
3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-4-questions.tex
View File

@@ -1,37 +1,36 @@
\subsection{Questionnaire}
\label{questions}
\figref{results_questions} presents the questionnaire results for each visual hand rendering.
Friedman tests indicated that all questions had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used each question results (\secref{metrics}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \response{Difficulty}: \level{Occlusion} was considered more difficult than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.01}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03}).
\item \response{Fatigue}: \level{None} was found more fatiguing than \level{Mesh} (\p{0.04}); And \level{Occlusion} more than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Precision}: \level{None} was considered less precise than \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}); And \level{Occlusion} more than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Performance}: \level{Occlusion} was lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.006}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.03}).
\item \response{Efficiency}: \level{Occlusion} was found less efficient than \level{Contour} (\p{0.01}), \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.02}), and \level{Mesh} (\p{0.02}).
\item \response{Rating}: \level{Occlusion} was rated lower than \level{Contour} (\p{0.02}) and \level{Skeleton} (\p{0.03}).
\end{itemize}
In summary, \level{Occlusion} was worse than \level{Skeleton} for all questions, and worse than \level{Contour} and \level{Mesh} on 5 over 6 questions.
Results of \response{Difficulty}, \response{Performance}, and \response{Precision} questions are consistent in that way.
Moreover, having no visible visual \factor{Hand} rendering was felt by users fatiguing and less precise than having one.
Surprisingly, no clear consensus was found on \response{Rating}.
Each visual hand rendering, except for \level{Occlusion}, had simultaneously received the minimum and maximum possible notes.
\begin{subfigs}{results_questions}{Boxplots of the questionnaire results for each visual hand rendering. }[
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: ** is \pinf{0.01} and * is \pinf{0.05}.
Lower is better for \textbf{(a)} difficulty and \textbf{(b)} fatigue.
Higher is better for \textbf{(c)} precision, \textbf{(d)} efficiency, and \textbf{(e)} rating.
Higher is better for \textbf{(d)} performance, \textbf{(d)} precision, \textbf{(e)} efficiency, and \textbf{(f)} rating.
]
\subfig[0.19]{results/Question-Difficulty}
\subfig[0.19]{results/Question-Fatigue}
\subfig[0.19]{results/Question-Precision}
\subfig[0.19]{results/Question-Efficiency}
\subfig[0.19]{results/Question-Rating}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Difficulty}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Fatigue}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Performance}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Precision}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Efficiency}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Rating}
\end{subfigs}
\figref{results_questions} presents the questionnaire results for each visual hand rendering.
%
Friedman tests indicated that all questions had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
%
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used each question results (\secref{metrics}):
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Difficulty}: Occlusion was considered more difficult than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.01}), and Mesh (\p{0.03}).
\item \textit{Fatigue}: None was found more fatiguing than Mesh (\p{0.04}); And Occlusion more than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
\item \textit{Precision}: None was considered less precise than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}); And Occlusion more than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.006}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
\item \textit{Efficiency}: Occlusion was found less efficient than Contour (\p{0.01}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
\item \textit{Rating}: Occlusion was rated lower than Contour (\p{0.02}) and Skeleton (\p{0.03}).
\end{itemize}
In summary, Occlusion was worse than Skeleton for all questions, and worse than Contour and Mesh on 5 over 6 questions.
%
Results of Difficulty, Performance, and Precision questions are consistent in that way.
%
Moreover, having no visible visual hand rendering was felt by users fatiguing and less precise than having one.
%
Surprisingly, no clear consensus was found on Rating.
%
Each visual hand rendering, except for Occlusion, had simultaneously received the minimum and maximum possible notes.