Formatting

3-manipulation/manipulation.tex

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 \part{Improving Virtual Object Manipulation with Visuo-Haptic Augmentations of the Hand}
-\mainlabel{manipulation}
+\mainlabel{manipulation}

3-manipulation/visual-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
 
 This first experiment aims to analyze whether the chosen visual hand rendering affects the performance and user experience of manipulating virtual objects with bare hands in AR.
 
-
 \subsection{Visual Hand Renderings}
 \label{hands}
 
@@ -17,7 +16,6 @@ All considered hand renderings are drawn following the tracked pose of the user'
 %
 However, while the real hand can of course penetrate virtual objects, the visual hand is always constrained by the virtual environment.
 
-
 \subsubsection{None~(\figref{method/hands-none})}
 \label{hands_none}
 
@@ -27,7 +25,6 @@ Users have no information about hand tracking and no feedback about contact with
 %
 As virtual content is rendered on top of the real environment, the hand of the user can be hidden by the virtual objects when manipulating them (\secref{hands}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Occlusion (Occl,~\figref{method/hands-occlusion})}
 \label{hands_occlusion}
 
@@ -35,7 +32,6 @@ To avoid the abovementioned undesired occlusions due to the virtual content bein
 %
 This approach is frequent in works using VST-AR headsets \cite{knorlein2009influence, ha2014wearhand, piumsomboon2014graspshell, suzuki2014grasping, al-kalbani2016analysis}.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Tips (\figref{method/hands-tips})}
 \label{hands_tips}
 
@@ -43,7 +39,6 @@ This rendering shows small visual rings around the fingertips of the user, highl
 %
 Unlike work using small spheres \cite{maisto2017evaluation, meli2014wearable, grubert2018effects, normand2018enlarging, schwind2018touch}, this ring rendering also provides information about the orientation of the fingertips.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Contour (Cont,~\figref{method/hands-contour})}
 \label{hands_contour}
 
@@ -53,7 +48,6 @@ Unlike the other renderings, it is not occluded by the virtual objects, as shown
 %
 This rendering is not as usual as the previous others in the literature \cite{kang2020comparative}.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Skeleton (Skel,~\figref{method/hands-skeleton})}
 \label{hands_skeleton}
 
@@ -63,7 +57,6 @@ It can be seen as an extension of the Tips rendering to include the complete fin
 %
 It is widely used in VR \cite{argelaguet2016role, schwind2018touch, chessa2019grasping} and AR \cite{blaga2017usability, yoon2020evaluating}, as it is considered simple yet rich and comprehensive.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Mesh (\figref{method/hands-mesh})}
 \label{hands_mesh}
 
@@ -71,7 +64,6 @@ This rendering is a 3D semi-transparent ($a=0.2$) hand model, which is common in
 %
 It can be seen as a filled version of the Contour hand rendering, thus partially covering the view of the real hand.
 
-
 \subsection{Manipulation Tasks and Virtual Scene}
 \label{tasks}
 
@@ -88,7 +80,6 @@ It can be seen as a filled version of the Contour hand rendering, thus partially
 
 Following the guidelines of \textcite{bergstrom2021how} for designing object manipulation tasks, we considered two variations of a 3D pick-and-place task, commonly found in interaction and manipulation studies \cite{prachyabrued2014visual, maisto2017evaluation, meli2018combining, blaga2017usability, vanveldhuizen2021effect}.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Push Task}
 \label{push-task}
 
@@ -106,7 +97,6 @@ In this task, the cube cannot be lifted.
 %
 The task is considered completed when the cube is \emph{fully} inside the target volume.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Grasp Task}
 \label{grasp-task}
 
@@ -118,15 +108,14 @@ Users are asked to grasp, lift, and move the cube towards the target volume usin
 %
 As before, the task is considered completed when the cube is \emph{fully} inside the volume.
 
-
 \subsection{Experimental Design}
 \label{design}
 
 We analyzed the two tasks separately. For each of them, we considered two independent, within-subject, variables:
 %
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \emph{Visual Hand Renderings}, consisting of the six possible renderings discussed in \secref{hands}: None, Occlusion (Occl), Tips, Contour (Cont), Skeleton (Skel), and Mesh.
-    \item \emph{Target}, consisting of the eight possible {location} of the target volume, named as the cardinal points and as shown in \figref{tasks}: {E, NE, N, NW, W, SW, S, and SE}.
+  \item \emph{Visual Hand Renderings}, consisting of the six possible renderings discussed in \secref{hands}: None, Occlusion (Occl), Tips, Contour (Cont), Skeleton (Skel), and Mesh.
+  \item \emph{Target}, consisting of the eight possible {location} of the target volume, named as the cardinal points and as shown in \figref{tasks}: {E, NE, N, NW, W, SW, S, and SE}.
 
 \end{itemize}
 %
@@ -136,7 +125,6 @@ To control learning effects, we counter-balanced the orders of the two manipulat
 %
 This design led to a total of 2 manipulation tasks \x 6 visual hand renderings \x 8 targets \x 3 repetitions $=$ 288 trials per participant.
 
-
 \subsection{Apparatus and Implementation}
 \label{apparatus}
 
@@ -170,7 +158,6 @@ The room where the experiment was held had no windows, with one light source of
 %
 This setup enabled a good and consistent tracking of the user's fingers.
 
-
 \subsection{Protocol}
 \label{protocol}
 
@@ -186,7 +173,6 @@ Similarly to \cite{prachyabrued2014visual, maisto2017evaluation, blaga2017usabil
 %
 The experiment took around 1 hour and 20 minutes to complete.
 
-
 \subsection{Participants}
 \label{participants}
 
@@ -202,7 +188,6 @@ Two subjects had significant experience with AR (\enquote{I use it every week}),
 %
 Participants signed an informed consent, including the declaration of having no conflict of interest.
 
-
 \subsection{Collected Data}
 \label{metrics}
 

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
 %
 and (3) back N and NW targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Contacts}
 \label{push_contacts_count}
 
@@ -36,7 +35,6 @@ This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicate
 %
 Targets on the left (W) and the right (E, SW) were easier to reach than the back ones (N, NW, \pinf{0.001}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Time per Contact}
 \label{push_time_per_contact}
 

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-3-ranks.tex

@@ -19,14 +19,14 @@ Friedman tests indicated that both ranking had statistically significant differe
 Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used on both ranking results (\secref{metrics}):
 
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
-          %
-          Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
-          %
-          This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
-    \item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
-          %
-          No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
-          %
-          A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
+  \item \textit{Push Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.005}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.03});
+    %
+    Tips was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.02}).
+    %
+    This good ranking of the Skeleton rendering for the Push task is consistent with the Push trial results.
+  \item \textit{Grasp Ranking}: Occlusion was ranked lower than Contour (\p{0.001}), Skeleton (\p{0.001}), and Mesh (\p{0.007});
+    %
+    No Hand was ranked lower than Skeleton (\p{0.04}).
+    %
+    A complete visual hand rendering seemed to be preferred over no visual hand rendering when grasping.
 \end{itemize}

3-manipulation/visual-hand/3-4-questions.tex

@@ -18,13 +18,12 @@
 Friedman tests indicated that all questions had statistically significant differences (\pinf{0.001}).
 %
 Pairwise Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Holm-Bonferroni adjustment were then used each question results (\secref{metrics}):
-
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \textit{Difficulty}: Occlusion was considered more difficult than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.01}), and Mesh (\p{0.03}).
-    \item \textit{Fatigue}: None was found more fatiguing than Mesh (\p{0.04}); And Occlusion more than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
-    \item \textit{Precision}: None was considered less precise than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}); And Occlusion more than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.006}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
-    \item \textit{Efficiency}: Occlusion was found less efficient than Contour (\p{0.01}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
-    \item \textit{{Rating}}: Occlusion was rated lower than Contour (\p{0.02}) and Skeleton (\p{0.03}).
+  \item \textit{Difficulty}: Occlusion was considered more difficult than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.01}), and Mesh (\p{0.03}).
+  \item \textit{Fatigue}: None was found more fatiguing than Mesh (\p{0.04}); And Occlusion more than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
+  \item \textit{Precision}: None was considered less precise than Skeleton (\p{0.02}) and Mesh (\p{0.02}); And Occlusion more than Contour (\p{0.02}), Skeleton (\p{0.006}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
+  \item \textit{Efficiency}: Occlusion was found less efficient than Contour (\p{0.01}), Skeleton (\p{0.02}), and Mesh (\p{0.02}).
+  \item \textit{Rating}: Occlusion was rated lower than Contour (\p{0.02}) and Skeleton (\p{0.03}).
 \end{itemize}
 
 In summary, Occlusion was worse than Skeleton for all questions, and worse than Contour and Mesh on 5 over 6 questions.

3-manipulation/visual-hand/visual-hand.tex

@@ -11,4 +11,4 @@
 \input{3-3-ranks}
 \input{3-4-questions}
 \input{4-discussion}
-\input{5-conclusion}
+\input{5-conclusion}

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex

@@ -11,7 +11,6 @@ This second experiment aims to evaluate whether a visuo-haptic hand rendering af
 %
 The chosen visuo-haptic hand renderings are the combination of the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment, \ie Skeleton and None, described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}, with two contact vibration techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand.
 
-
 \subsection{Vibrotactile Renderings}
 \label{vibration}
 
@@ -19,7 +18,6 @@ The vibrotactile hand rendering provided information about the contacts between
 %
 We evaluated both the delocalized positioning and the contact vibration technique of the vibrotactile hand rendering.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Vibrotactile Positionings}
 \label{positioning}
 
@@ -32,18 +30,17 @@ We evaluated both the delocalized positioning and the contact vibration techniqu
 }
 
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \textit{Fingertips (Tips):} Vibrating actuators were placed right above the nails, similarly to \cite{ando2007fingernailmounted}. This is the positioning closest to the fingertips.
-          %
-    \item \textit{Proximal Phalanges (Prox):} Vibrating actuators were placed on the dorsal side of the proximal phalanges, similarly to \cite{maisto2017evaluation, meli2018combining, chinello2020modular}.
-          %
-    \item \textit{Wrist (Wris):} Vibrating actuators providing contacts rendering for the index and thumb were placed on ulnar and radial sides of the wrist, similarly to \cite{pezent2019tasbi, palmer2022haptic, sarac2022perceived}.
-          %
-    \item \textit{Opposite fingertips (Oppo):} Vibrating actuators were placed on the fingertips of contralateral hand, also above the nails, similarly to \cite{prattichizzo2012cutaneous, detinguy2018enhancing}.
-          %
-    \item \textit{Nowhere (Nowh):} As a reference, we also considered the case where we provided no vibrotactile rendering.
+  \item \textit{Fingertips (Tips):} Vibrating actuators were placed right above the nails, similarly to \cite{ando2007fingernailmounted}. This is the positioning closest to the fingertips.
+    %
+  \item \textit{Proximal Phalanges (Prox):} Vibrating actuators were placed on the dorsal side of the proximal phalanges, similarly to \cite{maisto2017evaluation, meli2018combining, chinello2020modular}.
+    %
+  \item \textit{Wrist (Wris):} Vibrating actuators providing contacts rendering for the index and thumb were placed on ulnar and radial sides of the wrist, similarly to \cite{pezent2019tasbi, palmer2022haptic, sarac2022perceived}.
+    %
+  \item \textit{Opposite fingertips (Oppo):} Vibrating actuators were placed on the fingertips of contralateral hand, also above the nails, similarly to \cite{prattichizzo2012cutaneous, detinguy2018enhancing}.
+    %
+  \item \textit{Nowhere (Nowh):} As a reference, we also considered the case where we provided no vibrotactile rendering.
 \end{itemize}
 
-
 \subsubsection{Contact Vibration Techniques}
 \label{technique}
 
@@ -52,8 +49,8 @@ When a fingertip contacts the virtual cube, we activate the corresponding vibrat
 We considered two representative contact vibration techniques, \ie two ways of rendering such contacts through vibrations:
 %
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \textit{Impact (Impa):} a \qty{200}{\ms}--long vibration burst is applied when the fingertip makes contact with the object; the amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the speed of the fingertip at the moment of the contact.
-    \item \textit{Distance (Dist):} a continuous vibration is applied whenever the fingertip is in contact with the object; the amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the interpenetration between the fingertip and the virtual cube surface.
+  \item \textit{Impact (Impa):} a \qty{200}{\ms}--long vibration burst is applied when the fingertip makes contact with the object; the amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the speed of the fingertip at the moment of the contact.
+  \item \textit{Distance (Dist):} a continuous vibration is applied whenever the fingertip is in contact with the object; the amplitude of the vibration is proportional to the interpenetration between the fingertip and the virtual cube surface.
 \end{itemize}
 %
 The implementation of these two techniques have been tuned according to the results of a preliminary experiment.
@@ -68,7 +65,6 @@ For this reason, we designed the Impact vibration technique (Impa) so that conta
 %
 Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpenetrations from \qtyrange{0}{2.5}{\cm} are linearly mapped into \qtyrange{15}{100}{\%} amplitude commands for the motors, recalling that the virtual cube has an edge of \qty{5}{\cm}.
 
-
 \subsection{Experimental Design}
 \label{design}
 
@@ -101,10 +97,10 @@ Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpene
 We considered the same two tasks as in Experiment \#1, described in \secref[visual_hand]{tasks}, that we analyzed separately, considering four independent, within-subject variables:
 
 \begin{itemize}
-    \item \emph{{Vibrotactile Positioning}:} the five positionings for providing vibrotactile hand rendering of the virtual contacts, as described in \secref{positioning}.
-    \item \emph{Contact Vibration Technique}: the two contact vibration techniques, as described in \secref{technique}.
-    \item \emph{visual Hand rendering}: two visual hand renderings from the first experiment, Skeleton (Skel) and None, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}; we considered Skeleton as it performed the best in terms of performance and perceived effectiveness and None as reference.
-    \item \emph{Target}: we considered target volumes located at NW and SW during the Push task, and at NE, NW, SW, and SE during the Grasp task (\figref{tasks}); we considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
+  \item \emph{{Vibrotactile Positioning}:} the five positionings for providing vibrotactile hand rendering of the virtual contacts, as described in \secref{positioning}.
+  \item \emph{Contact Vibration Technique}: the two contact vibration techniques, as described in \secref{technique}.
+  \item \emph{visual Hand rendering}: two visual hand renderings from the first experiment, Skeleton (Skel) and None, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}; we considered Skeleton as it performed the best in terms of performance and perceived effectiveness and None as reference.
+  \item \emph{Target}: we considered target volumes located at NW and SW during the Push task, and at NE, NW, SW, and SE during the Grasp task (\figref{tasks}); we considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
 \end{itemize}
 
 To account for learning and fatigue effects, the positioning of the vibrotactile hand rendering (positioning) was counter-balanced using a balanced \numproduct{10 x 10} Latin square.
@@ -115,7 +111,6 @@ As we did not find any relevant effect of the order in which the tasks were perf
 
 This design led to a total of 5 vibrotactile positionings \x 2 vibration contact techniques \x 2 visual hand rendering \x (2 targets on the Push task + 4 targets on the Grasp task) \x 3 repetitions $=$ 420 trials per participant.
 
-
 \subsection{Apparatus and Protocol}
 \label{apparatus}
 
@@ -166,7 +161,6 @@ When the contact is lost, the spring is destroyed.
 %
 Preliminary tests confirmed this approach.
 
-
 \subsection{Collected Data}
 \label{metrics}
 
@@ -184,7 +178,6 @@ They then rated the ten combinations of Positioning \x Technique using a 7-item
 Finally, they rated the ten combinations of Positioning \x Hand on a 7-item Likert scale (1=Not at all, 7=Extremely): %
 \emph{(positioning \x Hand Rating)} How much do you like each combination of vibrotactile location for each visual hand rendering?
 
-
 \subsection{Participants}
 \label{participants}
 

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex

@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with Proximal and Opposite.
 %
 The NW target volume was also faster than the SW (\p{0.05}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Contacts}
 \label{push_contacts_count}
 
@@ -27,7 +26,6 @@ More contacts were made with Fingertips than with Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.
 %
 This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Time per Contact}
 \label{push_time_per_contact}
 

3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex

@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ Indeed, some participants explained that the contact cues were sufficient to ind
 %
 Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetration of the finger with the cube, it was not strictly necessary to manipulate the cube quickly.
 
-
 \subsection{Questionnaire}
 \label{questions}
 
@@ -30,7 +29,7 @@ Although the Distance technique provided additional feedback on the interpenetra
   \subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}
 \end{subfigs}
 
-\figref{questions} shows the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.
+\figref{results_questions} shows the questionnaire results for each vibrotactile positioning.
 %
 Questionnaire results were analyzed using Aligned Rank Transform (ART) non-parametric analysis of variance (\secref{metrics}).
 %
@@ -40,7 +39,6 @@ Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and ART contrasts procedur
 %
 Only significant results are reported.
 
-
 \subsubsection{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
 \label{vibration_ratings}
 
@@ -52,7 +50,6 @@ Proximal more than Wrist (\p{0.007}), Opposite (\pinf{0.001}), and No Vibration
 %
 And Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.01}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
 \label{positioning_hand}
 
@@ -66,15 +63,13 @@ Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.03}) and No Vibration (\pinf{0.001});
 %
 And Skeleton more than No Hand (\pinf{0.001}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Workload}
 \label{workload}
 
-There was a main of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}).
+There was a main effect of Positioning (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}).
 %
 Participants found Opposite more fatiguing than Fingertips (\p{0.01}), Proximal (\p{0.003}), and Wrist (\p{0.02}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Usefulness}
 \label{usefulness}
 
@@ -88,7 +83,6 @@ Wrist more than Opposite (\p{0.008}) and No Vibrations (\pinf{0.001});
 %
 And Opposite more than No Vibrations (\p{0.004}).
 
-
 \subsubsection{Realism}
 \label{realism}