From 613e6839022e2cc00c8ba32e7014ff747631556f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Erwan Normand Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 14:36:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Typo --- 3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex | 6 ++++-- 3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex | 2 +- 5-conclusion/conclusion.tex | 2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex b/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex index cf94f6f..fa4282b 100644 --- a/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex +++ b/3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex @@ -135,10 +135,12 @@ This shows that the participants consistently identified the roughness of each v \label{results_questions} \figref{results_questions} presents the questionnaire results of the \level{Matching} and \level{Ranking} tasks. -A non-parametric \ANOVA on an \ART model was used on the \response{Difficulty} and \response{Realism} question results, while the other question results were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. +A non-parametric \ANOVA on \ART models were used for the \response{Difficulty} and \response{Realism} question results. +The other question results were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment. -On \response{Difficulty}, there were statistically significant effects of \factor{Task} (\anova{1}{57}{13}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \response{Modality} (\anova{1}{57}{8}, \p{0.007}), but no interaction effect \factor{Task} \x \factor{Modality} (\anova{1}{57}{2}, \ns). +On \response{Difficulty}, there were statistically significant effects of \factor{Task} (\anova{1}{57}{13}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Modality} (\anova{1}{57}{8}, \p{0.007}), but no interaction effect. % \factor{Task} \x \factor{Modality} (\anova{1}{57}{2}, \ns). The \level{Ranking} task was found easier (\mean{2.9}, \sd{1.2}) than the \level{Matching} task (\mean{3.9}, \sd{1.5}), and the Haptic textures were found easier to discriminate (\mean{3.0}, \sd{1.3}) than the Visual ones (\mean{3.8}, \sd{1.5}). + Both haptic and visual textures were judged moderately realistic for both tasks (\mean{4.2}, \sd{1.3}), with no statistically significant effect of \factor{Task}, \factor{Modality} or their interaction on \response{Realism}. No statistically significant effects of \factor{Task} on \response{Textures Match} and \response{Uncomfort} were found either. The coherence of the texture pairs was considered moderate (\mean{4.6}, \sd{1.2}) and the haptic device was not felt uncomfortable (\mean{2.4}, \sd{1.4}). diff --git a/3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex b/3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex index 5f67943..3ea2965 100644 --- a/3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex +++ b/3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ \subsection{Trial Measures} \label{results_trials} -All measures from trials were analyzed using \LMM or \GLMM with \factor{Visual Rendering}, \factor{Amplitude Difference} and their interaction as within-participant factors, and by-participant random intercepts. +All measures from trials were analyzed using \LMM or \GLMM with \factor{Visual Rendering}, \factor{Amplitude Difference} and their interaction as within-participant factors, as well as by-participant random intercepts. Depending on the data, different random effect structures were tested. Only the best converging models are reported, with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) values. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Tukey's \HSD test. diff --git a/5-conclusion/conclusion.tex b/5-conclusion/conclusion.tex index 9c4af57..2a4c08f 100644 --- a/5-conclusion/conclusion.tex +++ b/5-conclusion/conclusion.tex @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ Our approach was to design visual augmentations of the hand and delocalized hapt We first considered \textbf{(1) the visual augmentation of the hand} and then the \textbf{(2)} combination of different \textbf{visuo-haptic feedback of the hand when manipulating virtual objects}. In \chapref{visual_hand}, we investigated the visual feedback of the virtual hand as an augmentation of the real hand. -Seen as an \textbf{overlay on the user's hand}, such visual hand renderings provide feedback on hand tracking and interaction with virtual objects. +Seen as an \textbf{overlay on the user's hand}, it provides feedback on hand tracking and interaction with virtual objects. We compared the six commonly used visual hand augmentations in the \AR literature in a user study with 24 participants, where we evaluated their effect on user performance and experience in two representative manipulation tasks. The results showed that a visual hand augmentation improved user performance, perceived effectiveness and confidence, with a \textbf{skeleton-like rendering being the most performant and effective}. This rendering provided a detailed view of the tracked phalanges while being thin enough not to hide the real hand.