WIP visual-hand chapter

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

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+\subsubsection{Push Task}
+\label{3_push}
+
+\subsubsubsection{Completion Time}
+\label{3_push_tct}
+
+On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
+Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \p[<]{0.001}, see \figref{3-Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{5.9}, \p[<]{0.001}).
+%
+Skeleton was the fastest, more than None (\qty{+18}{\%}, \p{0.005}), Occlusion (\qty{+26}{\%}, \p[<]{0.001}), Tips (\qty{+22}{\%}, \p[<]{0.001}), and Contour (\qty{+20}{\%}, \p{0.001}).
+%
+Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
+%
+(1) sides E, W, and SW targets were the fastest;
+%
+(2) back and front NE, S, and SE were slower (\p{0.003});
+%
+and (3) back N and NW targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
+
+
+\subsubsubsection{Contacts}
+\label{3_push_contacts_count}
+
+On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
+Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \p[<]{0.001}, see \figref{3-Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{27.8}, \p[<]{0.001}).
+%
+\figref{3-Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means} shows the Contacts for each Hand.
+%
+Less contacts were made with Skeleton than with None (\qty{-23}{\%}, \p[<]{0.001}), Occlusion (\qty{-26}{\%}, \p[<]{0.001}), Tips (\qty{-18}{\%}, \p{0.004}), and Contour (\qty{-15}{\%}, \p{0.02});
+%
+and less with Mesh than with Occlusion (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.04}).
+%
+This indicates how effective a visual hand rendering is: a lower result indicates a smoother ability to push and rotate properly the cube into the target, as one would probably do with a real cube.
+%
+Targets on the left (W) and the right (E, SW) were easier to reach than the back ones (N, NW, \p[<]{0.001}).
+
+
+\subsubsubsection{Time per Contact}
+\label{3_push_time_per_contact}
+
+On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
+Hand (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \p[<]{0.001}, see \figref{3-Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
+and Target (\anova{7}{2868}{19.4}, \p[<]{0.001}).
+%
+It was shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p[<]{0.001}) and Mesh (\qty{-8}{\%}, \p{0.03});
+%
+and shorter with Occlusion than with Tips (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.002}), Contour (\qty{-10}{\%}, \p{0.001}), Skeleton (\qty{-14}{\%}, \p{0.001}), and Mesh (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
+%
+This result suggests that users pushed the virtual cube with more confidence with a visible visual hand rendering.
+%
+On the contrary, the lack of visual hand constrained the participants to give more attention to the cube's reactions.
+%
+Targets on the left (W, SW) and the right (E) sides had higher Timer per Contact than all the other targets (\p{0.005}).