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

27
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
\subsection{Grasp Task}
\label{grasp}
\subsubsection{Completion Time}
\label{grasp_tct}
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{13.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means})
@@ -12,8 +11,7 @@ and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{18.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{RF} was faster than \level{RB} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{LB} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
and \level{LF} was faster than \level{RB} (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{grasp_contacts_count}
\paragraph{Contacts}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) %
@@ -22,8 +20,7 @@ Fewer contacts were made with \level{Opposite} than with \level{Fingertips} (\pe
but more with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{+13}, \p{0.002}) or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{+17}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was also easier on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{LB} (\p{0.006}), or \level{RF} (\p{0.03}).
\subsubsection{Time per Contact}
\label{grasp_time_per_contact}
\paragraph{Time per Contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{2.9}, \p{0.02}, see \figref{results/Grasp-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means})
@@ -32,8 +29,7 @@ It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\percent{+7},
It was also shorter on \level{RF} than on \level{RB}, \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
but longer on \level{LF} than on \level{RB} or \level{LB} (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Grip Aperture}
\label{grasp_grip_aperture}
\paragraph{Grip Aperture}
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
statistically significant effects:
@@ -43,3 +39,18 @@ It was longer with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Proximal} (\pinf{0.001}),
and longer with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}) or \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
But, it was shorter with \level{RB} than with \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001});
and shorter with \level{RF} than with \level{LB} or \level{LF} (\pinf{0.001}).
\begin{subfigs}{grasp_results}{Results of the grasp task performance metrics for each vibrotactile positioning.}[
Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} confidence and Tukey's \HSD pairwise comparisons: *** is \pinf{0.001}, ** is \pinf{0.01}, and * is \pinf{0.05}.
][
\item Time to complete a trial.
\item Number of contacts with the cube.
\item Time spent on each contact.
\item Distance between thumb and the other fingertips when grasping.
]
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Location-Overall-Means}
\end{subfigs}