Formatting

2-perception/ar-textures/1-introduction.tex

@@ -1,6 +1,3 @@
-\section{Introduction}
-\label{introduction}
-
 When we look at the surface of an everyday object, we then touch it to confirm or contrast our initial visual impression and to estimate the properties of the object \cite{ernst2002humans}.
 %
 One of the main characteristics of a textured surface is its roughness, \ie the micro-geometry of the material \cite{klatzky2003feeling}, which is perceived equally well and similarly by both sight and touch \cite{bergmanntiest2007haptic,baumgartner2013visual,vardar2019fingertip}.

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}
 
@@ -118,7 +108,6 @@ 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}
 
@@ -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/3-4-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{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/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}
 
@@ -43,7 +41,6 @@ We evaluated both the delocalized positioning and the contact vibration techniqu
   \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}
 
@@ -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}
 
@@ -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}
 

main.tex

@@ -31,14 +31,14 @@
 \begin{document}
 
 \frontmatter
-\importcover{0-front}{cover}
+%\importcover{0-front}{cover}
 %\importchapter{0-front}{acknowledgement}
 \importchapter{0-front}{toc}
 
 \mainmatter
 \import{1-introduction}{part}
 \importchapter{1-introduction/introduction}{introduction}
-\importchapter{1-introduction/related-work}{related-work}
+%\importchapter{1-introduction/related-work}{related-work}
 
 \import{2-perception}{perception}
 \importchapter{2-perception/vhar-system}{vhar-system}
@@ -58,6 +58,6 @@
 \importchapter{4-conclusion}{acronyms}
 \importchapter{4-conclusion}{figures}
 \importchapter{4-conclusion}{tables}
-\importcover{4-conclusion}{backcover}
+%\importcover{4-conclusion}{backcover}
 
 \end{document}