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

44
4-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -3,18 +3,18 @@
\paragraph{Completion Time}
On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect %
of \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{37.2}, \pinf{0.001}) %
but not of \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{1.8}, \p{0.1}, see \figref{results/Grasp-CompletionTime-Hand-Overall-Means}).
On the time to complete a trial, there was one statistically significant effect
of \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{34.3}, \pinf{0.001})
but not of \factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{1.7}, \p{0.1}).
Targets on the back and the left (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \level{L}) were slower than targets on the front (\level{LF}, \level{F}, and \level{RF}, \p{0.003}) {except for} \level{RB} (back-right) which was also fast.
\paragraph{Contacts}
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{5.2}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{21.2}, \pinf{0.001}).
On the number of contacts, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{4.9}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{20.0}, \pinf{0.001}).
Less contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\percent{-13}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.004});
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Tips} than with \level{None} (\percent{-13}, \p{0.02}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.004});
and less with \level{Mesh} than with \level{None} (\percent{-15}, \p{0.006}) and \level{Occlusion} (\percent{-17}, \p{0.001}).
This result suggests that having no visible visual hand increased the number of failed grasps or cube drops.
But, surprisingly, only \level{Tips} and \level{Mesh} were statistically significantly better, not \level{Contour} nor \level{Skeleton}.
@@ -23,9 +23,9 @@ Targets on the back and left were more difficult (\level{B}, \level{LB}, and \le
\paragraph{Time per Contact}
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{9.6}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{5.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
On the mean time spent on each contact, there were two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{3385}{9.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3385}{5.4}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.001});
shorter with \level{Occlusion} than with \level{Tips} (\percent{-10}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.05}), and \level{Mesh} (\percent{-8}, \p{0.04});
@@ -38,15 +38,16 @@ This time was the shortest on the front \level{F} than on the other target volum
\paragraph{Grip Aperture}
On the average distance between the thumb's fingertip and the other fingertips during grasping, there were two
statistically significant effects: %
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{2868}{35.8}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{2868}{3.7}, \pinf{0.001}).
statistically significant effects:
\factor{Hand} (\anova{5}{19}{6.7}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-GripAperture})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3270}{4.1}, \pinf{0.001}).
\footnote{Note that the best converging \LMM (with the lowest Akaike Information Criterion value) had a by-participant random intercept (like all the other models in this study) and a by-participant random slope for the \factor{Hand} factor. The results reported are from this model, which explains the different degrees of freedom from the other models.}
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Occlusion} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Tips} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Contour} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001});
shorter with \level{Tips} than with \level{Occlusion} (\p{0.008}), \level{Contour} (\p{0.006}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001});
and shorter with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Occlusion} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Contour} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
%shorter with \level{Tips} than with \level{Occlusion} (\p{0.008}), \level{Contour} (\p{0.006}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001});
%and shorter with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
This result is an evidence of the lack of confidence of participants with no visual hand rendering: they grasped the cube more to secure it.
The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to participants, maybe because it was the closest to the real hand.
%The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to participants, maybe because it was the closest to the real hand.
The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (\level{R}, \level{RB}, \level{B}, \level{L}, \p{0.03}).
@@ -54,14 +55,11 @@ The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target v
Geometric means with bootstrap \percent{95} \CI
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-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-ContactsCount-Hand-Overall-Means}
\par
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.4]{results/Grasp-GripAperture-Hand-Overall-Means}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Grasp-ContactsCount}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime}
\subfig[0.32]{results/Grasp-GripAperture}
\end{subfigs}