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

31
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-3-questions.tex
View File

@@ -18,42 +18,42 @@ Statistically significant effects were further analyzed with post-hoc pairwise c
Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for main effects and \ART contrasts procedure for interaction effects.
Only significant results are reported.
\subsubsection{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
\paragraph{Vibrotactile Rendering Rating}
\label{vibration_ratings}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}).
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{27.0}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.01}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.007}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.01}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
\paragraph{Positioning \x Hand Rating}
\label{positioning_hand}
There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
There were two main effects of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{20.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Positioning-Overall}) and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{171}{12.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
Participants preferred \level{Fingertips} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.003}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Skeleton} more than No \factor{Hand} (\pinf{0.001}).
And \level{Skeleton} more than \level{No Hand} (\pinf{0.001}).
\subsubsection{Workload}
\paragraph{Workload}
\label{workload}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}).
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{3.9}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Opposite} more fatiguing than \level{Fingertips} (\p{0.01}), \level{Proximal} (\p{0.003}), and \level{Wrist} (\p{0.02}).
\subsubsection{Usefulness}
\paragraph{Usefulness}
\label{usefulness}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}).
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{38.0}, \p{0.041}, see \figref{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most useful, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.02}), \level{Wrist} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.008}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.008}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.004}).
\subsubsection{Realism}
\paragraph{Realism}
\label{realism}
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
There was a main effect of \factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{171}{28.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}).
Participants found \level{Fingertips} the most realistic, more than \level{Proximal} (\p{0.05}), \level{Wrist} (\p{0.004}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Proximal} more than \level{Wrist} (\p{0.03}), \level{Opposite} (\pinf{0.001}), and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
\level{Wrist} more than \level{Opposite} (\p{0.03}) and \level{Nowhere} (\pinf{0.001});
@@ -64,8 +64,9 @@ And \level{Opposite} more than \level{Nowhere} (\p{0.03}).
Higher is better for \textbf{(a)} vibrotactile rendering rating, \textbf{(c)} usefulness and \textbf{(c)} fatigue.
Lower is better for \textbf{(d)} workload.
]
\subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.24]{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Vibration Rating-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Workload-Positioning-Overall}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Usefulness-Positioning-Overall}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Question-Realism-Positioning-Overall}
\end{subfigs}