erwan/phd-thesis
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Complete visuo-haptic-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-26 20:49:03 +02:00
parent ac5b773065
commit ccbd2f3135
10 changed files with 126 additions and 101 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

20
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex
View File

@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
\subsection{Push Task}
\label{push}
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{push_tct}
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -12,16 +11,14 @@ There was no evidence of an advantage of \level{Proximal} or \level{Opposite} on
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with \level{Proximal} and \level{Opposite}.
The \level{LB} target volume was also faster than the \level{LF} (\p{0.05}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{push_contacts_count}
\paragraph{Contacts}
On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
More contacts were made with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\percent{+12}, \p{0.03}).
This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{push_time_per_contact}
\paragraph{Time per Contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects of
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -31,7 +28,7 @@ It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-15}, \
and shorter with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.005}), or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}).
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the \level{Fingertips} and \level{Proximal} positionings.
It was also shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-9}, \pinf{0.001}).
This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.
This indicates, as for the \chapref{visual_hand}, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.
\begin{subfigs}{push_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics.}[
Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI for each vibrotactile positioning (a, b and c) or visual hand rendering (d)
@@ -42,8 +39,9 @@ This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand
\item Mean time spent on each contact.
\item Mean time spent on each contact.
]
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}
\end{subfigs}