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

2
3-perception/xr-perception/1-introduction.tex
View File

@@ -26,6 +26,6 @@ We then present the results obtained, discuss them, and outline recommendations
\fig[0.55]{teaser/teaser2}{
Vibrotactile textures were rendered in real time on a real surface using a wearable vibrotactile device worn on the finger.
}[%
}[
Participants explored this haptic roughness augmentation with (\level{Real}) their real hand alone, (\level{Mixed}) a realistic virtual hand overlay in \AR, and (\level{Virtual}) the same virtual hand in \VR.
]

2
3-perception/xr-perception/3-experiment.tex
View File

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ In order not to influence the perception, as vision is an important source of in
\begin{subfigs}{renderings}{
The three visual rendering conditions and the experimental procedure of the \TIFC psychophysical study.
}[%
}[
During a trial, two tactile textures were rendered on the augmented area of the paper sheet (black rectangle) for \qty{3}{\s} each, one after the other, then the participant chose which one was the roughest.
The visual rendering stayed the same during the trial.
The pictures are captured directly from the Microsoft HoloLens 2 headset.

9
3-perception/xr-perception/4-results.tex
View File

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ All pairwise differences were statistically significant.
\subsubsection{Response Time}
\label{response_time}
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effect on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering}, and a log transformation (as \response{Response Time} measures were gamma distributed) indicated a statistically significant effect on \response{Response Time} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{6.2}, \p{0.009}, see \figref{results/trial_response_times}).
Reported response times are \GM.
Participants took longer on average to respond with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{1.65}{\s} \ci{1.59}{1.72}) than with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{1.38}{\s} \ci{1.32}{1.43}), which is the only statistically significant difference (\ttest{19}{0.3}, \p{0.005}).
The \level{Mixed} rendering was in between (\geomean{1.56}{\s} \ci{1.49}{1.63}).
@@ -47,17 +47,17 @@ The \level{Mixed} rendering was in between (\geomean{1.56}{\s} \ci{1.49}{1.63}).
The frames analyzed were those in which the participants actively touched the comparison textures with a finger speed greater than \SI{1}{\mm\per\second}.
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering} indicated only one statistically significant effect on the total distance traveled by the finger in a trial of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{3.9}, \p{0.04}, \figref{results/trial_distances}).
A \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random slopes for \factor{Visual Rendering} indicated only one statistically significant effect on the total distance traveled by the finger in a trial of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{18}{3.9}, \p{0.04}, see \figref{results/trial_distances}).
On average, participants explored a larger distance with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{20.0}{\cm} \ci{19.4}{20.7}) than with \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{16.5}{\cm} \ci{15.8}{17.1}), which is the only statistically significant difference (\ttest{19}{1.2}, \p{0.03}), with the \level{Mixed} rendering (\geomean{17.4}{\cm} \ci{16.8}{18.0}) in between.
Another \LMM \ANOVA with by-trial and by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes indicated only one statistically significant effect on \response{Finger Speed} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{2142}{2.0}, \pinf{0.001}, \figref{results/trial_speeds}).
Another \LMM \ANOVA with by-trial and by-participant random intercepts but no random slopes indicated only one statistically significant effect on \response{Finger Speed} of \factor{Visual Rendering} (\anova{2}{2142}{2.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/trial_speeds}).
On average, the textures were explored with the highest speed with the \level{Real} rendering (\geomean{5.12}{\cm\per\second} \ci{5.08}{5.17}), the lowest with the \level{Virtual} rendering (\geomean{4.40}{\cm\per\second} \ci{4.35}{4.45}), and the \level{Mixed} rendering (\geomean{4.67}{\cm\per\second} \ci{4.63}{4.71}) in between.
All pairwise differences were statistically significant: \level{Real} \vs \level{Virtual} (\ttest{19}{1.17}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Real} \vs \level{Mixed} (\ttest{19}{1.10}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Mixed} \vs \level{Virtual} (\ttest{19}{1.07}, \p{0.02}).
This means that within the same time window on the same surface, participants explored the comparison texture on average at a greater distance and at a higher speed when in the \RE without visual representation of the hand (\level{Real} condition) than when in \VR (\level{Virtual} condition).
\begin{subfigs}{results_finger}{Results of the performance metrics for the rendering condition.}[
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI, with Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
Boxplots and geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: * is \pinf{0.05}, ** is \pinf{0.01} and *** is \pinf{0.001}.
][
\item Response time at the end of a trial.
\item Distance travelled by the finger in a trial.
@@ -135,4 +135,3 @@ Participants were mixed between feeling the vibrations on the surface or on the
%
% (Right) Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire (lower values are better).
%}