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
2024-09-27 22:10:59 +02:00
parent 8a85b14d3b
commit a9319210df
13 changed files with 51 additions and 47 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

8
3-manipulation/visual-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
\section{Discussion}
\label{discussion}
We evaluated six visual hand renderings, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR.
We evaluated six visual hand renderings, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two \VO manipulation tasks in \AR.
During the \level{Push} task, the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
Participants consistently used few and continuous contacts for all visual hand renderings (Fig. 3b), with only less than ten trials, carried out by two participants, quickly completed with multiple discrete touches.
@@ -21,12 +21,12 @@ However, due to the latency of the hand tracking and the visual hand reacting to
The \level{Tips} rendering, which showed the contacts made on the virtual cube, was controversial as it received the minimum and the maximum score on every question.
Many participants reported difficulties in seeing the orientation of the visual fingers,
while others found that it gave them a better sense of the contact points and improved their concentration on the task.
This result is consistent with \textcite{saito2021contact}, who found that displaying the points of contacts was beneficial for grasping a virtual object over an opaque visual hand overlay.
This result is consistent with \textcite{saito2021contact}, who found that displaying the points of contacts was beneficial for grasping a \VO over an opaque visual hand overlay.
To summarize, when employing a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand, participants were more performant and confident in manipulating virtual objects with bare hands in \AR.
To summarize, when employing a visual hand rendering overlaying the real hand, participants were more performant and confident in manipulating \VOs with bare hands in \AR.
These results contrast with similar manipulation studies, but in non-immersive, on-screen \AR, where the presence of a visual hand rendering was found by participants to improve the usability of the interaction, but not their performance \cite{blaga2017usability,maisto2017evaluation,meli2018combining}.
Our results show the most effective visual hand rendering to be the \level{Skeleton} one.
Participants appreciated that it provided a detailed and precise view of the tracking of the real hand, without hiding or masking it.
Although the \level{Contour} and \level{Mesh} hand renderings were also highly rated, some participants felt that they were too visible and masked the real hand.
This result is in line with the results of virtual object manipulation in \VR of \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual}, who found that the most effective visual hand rendering was a double representation of both the real tracked hand and a visual hand physically constrained by the virtual environment.
This result is in line with the results of \VO manipulation in \VR of \textcite{prachyabrued2014visual}, who found that the most effective visual hand rendering was a double representation of both the real tracked hand and a visual hand physically constrained by the \VE.
This type of \level{Skeleton} rendering was also the one that provided the best sense of agency (control) in \VR \cite{argelaguet2016role,schwind2018touch}.