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

Style figures in visual-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-10-28 19:34:58 +01:00
parent 0d2e16f7b3
commit cd12783293
28 changed files with 48 additions and 51 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

26
4-manipulation/visual-hand/3-1-push.tex
View File

@@ -3,9 +3,9 @@
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{24.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{5.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{22.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
\level{Skeleton} was the fastest, more than \level{None} (\percent{+18}, \p{0.005}), \level{Occlusion} (\percent{+26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\percent{+22}, \pinf{0.001}), and \level{Contour} (\percent{+20}, \p{0.001}).
Three groups of targets volumes were identified:
@@ -15,11 +15,11 @@ and (3) back \level{B} and \level{LB} targets were the slowest (\p{0.04}).
\paragraph{Contacts}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{27.8}, \pinf{0.001}).
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{6.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-ContactsCount})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{25.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
Less contacts were made with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{None} (\percent{-23}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\percent{-18}, \p{0.004}), and \level{Contour} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.02});
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{None} (\percent{-23}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\percent{-18}, \p{0.004}), and \level{Contour} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.02});
and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-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.
@@ -27,9 +27,9 @@ Targets on the left (\level{L}, \level{LF}) and the right (\level{R}) were easie
\paragraph{Time per Contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{8.4}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{19.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{7.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{17.9}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-10}, \pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.03});
and shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-10}, \p{0.002}), \level{Contour} (\percent{-10}, \p{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-14}, \p{0.001}), and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.03}).
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ Targets on the left (\level{L}, \level{LF}) and the right (\level{R}) sides had
\item Number of contacts with the cube.
\item Time spent on each contact.
]
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-CompletionTime}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-ContactsCount}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Push-MeanContactTime}
\end{subfigs}