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

Adjust figures and tables

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-10-18 18:43:04 +02:00
parent 1d18d2cecf
commit 7022765ae3
18 changed files with 41 additions and 40 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
3-perception/xr-perception/3-experiment.tex
View File

@@ -155,23 +155,3 @@ For all questions, participants were shown only labels (\eg \enquote{Not at all}
\end{tabularx}
\end{tabwide}
}
\begin{tab}[!htb]{questions2}
{NASA-TLX questions asked to participants after each \factor{Visual Rendering} block of trials.}
[
Questions were bipolar 100-points scales (0~=~Very Low and 100~=~Very High, except for Performance where 0~=~Perfect and 100~=~Failure).
Participants were shown only the labels for all questions.
]
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{p{0.13\linewidth} X}
\toprule
\textbf{Code} & \textbf{Question} \\
\midrule
Mental Demand & How mentally demanding was the task? \\
Temporal Demand & How hurried or rushed was the pace of the task? \\
Physical Demand & How physically demanding was the task? \\
Performance & How successful were you in accomplishing what you were asked to do? \\
Effort & How hard did you have to work to accomplish your level of performance? \\
Frustration & How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed were you? \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{tab}

59
3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex
View File

@@ -83,25 +83,6 @@ Friedman tests were employed to compare the ratings to the questions (\tabref{qu
\item \response{Hand Distraction}: the virtual hand was slightly distracting with the \level{Mixed} rendering (\num{2.1 \pm 1.1}) but not at all with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\num{1.2 \pm 0.4}, \p{0.004}).
\end{itemize}
Overall, participants' sense of control over the virtual hand was very high (\response{Hand Agency}, \num{4.4 \pm 0.6}), felt the virtual hand was quite similar to their own hand (\response{Hand Similarity}, \num{3.5 \pm 0.9}), and that the \VE was very realistic (\response{Virtual Realism}, \num{4.2 \pm 0.7}) and very similar to the real one (\response{Virtual Similarity}, \num{4.5 \pm 0.7}).
The overall workload (mean NASA-TLX score) was low (\num{21 \pm 14}), with no statistically significant differences found between the visual renderings for any of the subscales or the overall score.
The textures were also overall found to be very much caused by the finger movements (\response{Texture Agency}, \num{4.5 \pm 1.0}) with a very low perceived latency (\response{Texture Latency}, \num{1.6 \pm 0.8}), and to be quite realistic (\response{Texture Realism}, \num{3.6 \pm 0.9}) and quite plausible (\response{Texture Plausibility}, \num{3.6 \pm 1.0}).
The vibrations were felt a slightly weak overall (\response{Vibration Strength}, \num{4.2 \pm 1.1}), and the vibrotactile device was perceived as neither distracting (\response{Device Distraction}, \num{1.2 \pm 0.4}) nor uncomfortable (\response{Device Discomfort}, \num{1.3 \pm 0.6}).
Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 \pm 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (\percent{42.5} more on surface or on finger top, \percent{15} neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in VR renderings (\percent{65} \vs \percent{25} more on surface and \percent{10} neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
%\figwide{results/question_heatmaps}{%
%
% Heatmaps of the questionnaire responses, with the median rating and the interquartile range in parentheses on each cell.
%
% (Left) point Likert scale questions (1=Not at all, 2=Slightly, 3=Moderately, 4=Very, 5=Extremely).
%
% (Middle) point Likert scale questions (1=Extremely A, 2=Moderately A, 3=Slightly A, 4=Neither A nor B, 5=Slightly B, 6=Moderately B, 7=Extremely B) with A and B being the two poles of the scale.
%
% (Right) Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire (lower values are better).
%}
\begin{subfigs}{results_questions}{Boxplots of the questionnaire results for the virtual hand renderings.}[
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
][
@@ -115,3 +96,43 @@ Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the
\subfig[0.18]{results/questions_hand_reference}
\subfig[0.18]{results/questions_hand_distraction}
\end{subfigs}
Overall, participants' sense of control over the virtual hand was very high (\response{Hand Agency}, \num{4.4 \pm 0.6}), felt the virtual hand was quite similar to their own hand (\response{Hand Similarity}, \num{3.5 \pm 0.9}), and that the \VE was very realistic (\response{Virtual Realism}, \num{4.2 \pm 0.7}) and very similar to the real one (\response{Virtual Similarity}, \num{4.5 \pm 0.7}).
The overall workload (mean NASA-TLX score) was low (\num{21 \pm 14}), with no statistically significant differences found between the visual renderings for any of the subscales or the overall score.
The textures were also overall found to be very much caused by the finger movements (\response{Texture Agency}, \num{4.5 \pm 1.0}) with a very low perceived latency (\response{Texture Latency}, \num{1.6 \pm 0.8}), and to be quite realistic (\response{Texture Realism}, \num{3.6 \pm 0.9}) and quite plausible (\response{Texture Plausibility}, \num{3.6 \pm 1.0}).
The vibrations were felt a slightly weak overall (\response{Vibration Strength}, \num{4.2 \pm 1.1}), and the vibrotactile device was perceived as neither distracting (\response{Device Distraction}, \num{1.2 \pm 0.4}) nor uncomfortable (\response{Device Discomfort}, \num{1.3 \pm 0.6}).
Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the top of their finger (\response{Vibration Location}, \num{3.9 \pm 1.7}); the distribution of scores was split between the two poles of the scale with \level{Real} and \level{Mixed} renderings (\percent{42.5} more on surface or on finger top, \percent{15} neutral), but there was a trend towards the top of the finger in VR renderings (\percent{65} \vs \percent{25} more on surface and \percent{10} neutral), but this difference was not statistically significant neither.
\begin{tab}{questions2}
{NASA-TLX questions asked to participants after each \factor{Visual Rendering} block of trials.}
[
Questions were bipolar 100-points scales (0~=~Very Low and 100~=~Very High, except for Performance where 0~=~Perfect and 100~=~Failure), with increments of 5.
%Participants were shown only the labels for all questions.
]
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{l X}
\toprule
\textbf{Code} & \textbf{Question} \\
\midrule
Mental Demand & How mentally demanding was the task? \\
Temporal Demand & How hurried or rushed was the pace of the task? \\
Physical Demand & How physically demanding was the task? \\
Performance & How successful were you in accomplishing what you were asked to do? \\
Effort & How hard did you have to work to accomplish your level of performance? \\
Frustration & How insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed were you? \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\end{tab}
%\figwide{results/question_heatmaps}{%
%
% Heatmaps of the questionnaire responses, with the median rating and the interquartile range in parentheses on each cell.
%
% (Left) point Likert scale questions (1=Not at all, 2=Slightly, 3=Moderately, 4=Very, 5=Extremely).
%
% (Middle) point Likert scale questions (1=Extremely A, 2=Moderately A, 3=Slightly A, 4=Neither A nor B, 5=Slightly B, 6=Moderately B, 7=Extremely B) with A and B being the two poles of the scale.
%
% (Right) Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire (lower values are better).
%}

BIN
3-perception/xr-perception/figures/experiment/apparatus.odg
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
3-perception/xr-perception/figures/experiment/apparatus.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
3-perception/xr-perception/figures/experiment/headset.odg
View File

Binary file not shown.

BIN
3-perception/xr-perception/figures/experiment/headset.pdf
View File

Binary file not shown.