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
2024-10-21 11:39:31 +02:00
parent bb25e3db38
commit 8957f70343
11 changed files with 96 additions and 19 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

5
3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ Even though the consensus was high (\kendall{0.61}, \ci{0.58}{0.64}), the roughn
\paragraph{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking}
Also, almost all the texture pairs in the visuo-haptic textures ranking results were statistically significantly different (\chisqr{8}{20}{140}, \pinf{0.001}; \pinf{0.05} for each comparison), except for the following groups: \{\level{Sandpaper~100}, \level{Cork}\}; \{\level{Cork}, \level{Brick~2}\}; and \{\level{Plastic Mesh~1}, \level{Velcro Hooks}, \level{Sandpaper~320}\}.
The consezsus between the participants was also high \kendall{0.77}, \ci{0.74}{0.79}.
The consensus between the participants was also high \kendall{0.77}, \ci{0.74}{0.79}.
Finally, calculating the similarity of the three rankings of each participant, the \textit{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking} was on average highly similar to the \textit{Haptic Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.79}, \ci{0.72}{0.86}) and moderately to the \textit{Visual Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.48}, \ci{0.39}{0.56}).
A Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated that this difference was statistically significant (\wilcoxon{190}, \p{0.002}).
These results indicate that the two haptic and visual modalities were integrated together, the resulting roughness ranking being between the two rankings of the modalities alone, but with haptics predominating.
@@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ Stiffness is indeed an important perceptual dimension of a material (\secref[rel
\fig[0.6]{results/matching_correspondence_analysis}{
Correspondence analysis of the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task.
}[
%The haptic textures are represented as green squares, the haptic textures as red circles. %
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}.
@@ -139,7 +138,7 @@ This shows that the participants consistently identified the roughness of each v
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.
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).
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 discrimate (\mean{3.0}, \sd{1.3}) than the Visual ones (\mean{3.8}, \sd{1.5}).
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}).