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

Typo

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2025-04-06 12:24:29 +02:00
parent cee4e4b50f
commit 74d850fc1b
6 changed files with 22 additions and 25 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -83,12 +83,10 @@ The first dimension was similar to the rankings (\figref{results/ranking_mean_ci
It seems that the second dimension opposed textures that were perceived as hard with those perceived as softer, as also reported by participants.
Stiffness is indeed an important perceptual dimension of a material (\secref[related_work]{hardness}).% \cite{okamoto2013psychophysical,culbertson2014modeling}.
\fig[0.6]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{
Correspondence analysis of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.
}[
The closer the haptic and visual textures are, the more similar they were judged. %
The first dimension (horizontal axis) explains \percent{60} of the variance, the second dimension (vertical axis) explains \percent{30} of the variance.
The confusion matrix is \figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix}.
\fig[1]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{Correspondence analysis of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.}[
The closer the haptic and visual textures are, the more similar they were judged.
The first dimension (horizontal axis) explains \percent{60} of the variance, the second dimension (vertical axis) explains \percent{29} of the variance.
The confusion matrix is shown in \figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix}.
]
\paragraph{Hierarchical Clustering}
@@ -102,15 +100,15 @@ It also shows that the participants compared and ranked the haptic textures duri
The five identified visual texture clusters were: "Roughest" \{\level{Metal Mesh}\}; "Rougher" \{\level{Sandpaper~100}, \level{Brick~2}, \level{Velcro Hooks}\}; "Medium" \{\level{Cork}, \level{Plastic Mesh~1}\}; "Smoother" \{\level{Sandpaper~320}, \level{Terra Cotta}\}; "Smoothest" \{\level{Coffee Filter}\} (\figref{results/clusters_visual}).
They are also easily identifiable on the visual ranking results, which also made it possible to name them.
\begin{subfigs}{results_clusters}{Dendrograms of the hierarchical clusterings of the \level{Matching} task confusion matrix.}[
\begin{subfigs}{results_clusters}{Dendrograms of the hierarchical clusterings of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.}[
Done with the Euclidean distance and the Ward's method on squared distance.
The height of the dendrograms represents the distance between the clusters.
][%
][
\item For the haptic textures.
\item For the visual textures.
]
\subfig[0.45]{results/clusters_haptic}
\subfig[0.45]{results/clusters_visual}
\subfig[0.48]{results/clusters_haptic}
\subfig[0.48]{results/clusters_visual}
\end{subfigs}
\paragraph{Confusion Matrices of Clusters}
@@ -140,7 +138,7 @@ A non-parametric \ANOVA on \ART models were used for the \response{Difficulty} a
The other question results were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment.
The results are shown as mean $\pm$ standard deviation.
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).
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 (\num{2.9 \pm 1.2}) than the \level{Matching} task (\num{3.9 \pm 1.5}), and the Haptic textures were found easier to discriminate (\num{3.0 \pm 1.3}) than the Visual ones (\num{3.8 \pm 1.5}).
Both haptic and visual textures were judged moderately realistic for both tasks (\num{4.2 \pm 1.3}), with no statistically significant effect of \factor{Task}, \factor{Modality} or their interaction on \response{Realism}.
@@ -151,10 +149,10 @@ The coherence of the texture pairs was considered moderate (\num{4.6 \pm 1.2}) a
Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
Lower is better for Difficulty and Uncomfortable; higher is better for Realism and Textures Match.
][
\item By modality.
\item By task.
\item By \factor{Modality}.
\item By \factor{Task}.
]
\subfigsheight{70mm}
\subfig{results/questions_modalities}%
\subfig{results/questions_tasks}%
\subfigsheight{75mm}
\subfig{results/questions_modalities}
\subfig{results/questions_tasks}
\end{subfigs}