Formatting

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}