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
2024-10-15 10:24:15 +02:00
parent 77fac7e11a
commit c343d89a78
2 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Another reason could be the visual impairment caused by the vibrotactile motors
We observed different strategies than in the \chapref{visual_hand} for the two tasks.
During the \level{Push} task, participants made more and shorter contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means} and \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}).
During the \level{Grasp} task, participants pressed the cube \percent{25} harder on average (\figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}).
During the \level{Grasp} task, participants pressed the cube \percent{25} harder on average (\figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}).
The \level{Fingertips} and \level{Proximal} positionings led to a slightly larger grip aperture than the others.
We think that the proximity of the vibrotactile rendering to the point of contact made users to take more time to adjust their grip in a more realistic manner, \ie closer to the surface of the cube.
This could also be the cause of the higher number of failed grasps or cube drops: indeed, we observed that the larger the grip aperture, the higher the number of contacts.
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ Participants reported that this visual hand rendering provided good feedback on
However, many also felt that it was a bit redundant with the vibrotactile hand rendering.
Indeed, receiving a vibrotactile hand rendering was found by participants as a more accurate and reliable information regarding the contact with the cube than simply seeing the cube and the visual hand reacting to the manipulation.
This result suggests that providing a visual hand rendering may not be useful during the grasping phase, but may be beneficial prior to contact with the \VO and during position and rotation adjustment, providing valuable information about the hand pose.
It is also worth noting that the improved hand tracking and grasp helper improved the manipulation of the cube with respect to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as shown by the shorter completion time during the \level{Grasp} task.
It is also worth noting that the improved hand tracking and grasp helper improved the manipulation of the cube with respect to the \chapref{visual_hand}, as shown by the shorter completion time during the \level{Grasp} task.
This improvement could also be the reason for the smaller differences between the \level{Skeleton} and the \level{None} visual hand renderings in this second experiment.
In summary, the positioning of the vibrotactile haptic rendering of the hand affected on the performance and experience of users manipulating \VOs with their bare hands in \AR.

4
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/5-conclusion.tex
View File

@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
In this chapter, we investigated the visuo-haptic rendering as feedback of the direct hand manipulation with \VOs in immersive \OST-\AR using wearable vibrotactile haptic.
To do so, we provided vibrotactile feedback of the fingertip contacts with \VOs during direct hand manipulation by moving away the haptic actuator that do not cover the inside of the hand: on the nails, the proximal phalanges, the wrist, and the nails of the opposite hand.
%We selected these four different delocalized positions on the hand from the literature for direct hand interaction in \AR using wearable haptic devices.
We selected these four different delocalized positions on the hand from the literature for direct hand interaction in \AR using wearable haptic devices.
In a user study, we compared sixteen visuo-haptic renderings of the hand as the combination of two vibrotactile contact techniques, provided at four different delocalized positions on the user's hand, and with the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the \chapref{visual_hand}, \ie the skeleton hand rendering and no hand rendering.
Results showed that delocalized vibrotactile haptic hand rendering improved the perceived effectiveness, realism, and usefulness when it is provided close to the contact point.
%However, the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand gave the best performance even though it was disliked: the unfamiliarity of the positioning probably caused the participants to take more effort to consider the haptic stimuli and to focus more on the task.
However, the farthest positioning on the contralateral hand gave the best performance even though it was disliked: the unfamiliarity of the positioning probably caused the participants to take more effort to consider the haptic stimuli and to focus more on the task.
The visual hand rendering was perceived less necessary than the vibrotactile haptic hand rendering, but still provided a useful feedback on the hand tracking.
This study provide evidence that moving away the feedback from the inside of the hand is a simple but promising approach for wearable haptics in \AR.