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

More visible comments

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2025-04-12 13:45:42 +02:00
parent c681cbf43d
commit d27dddc548
4 changed files with 5 additions and 5 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
3-perception/vhar-textures/3-results.tex
View File

@@ -7,9 +7,9 @@
\paragraph{Confusion Matrix}
\label{results_matching_confusion_matrix}
\comans{JG}{For the two-sample Chi-Squared tests in the matching task, the number of samples reported is 540 due to 20 participants conducting 3 trials for 9 textures each. However, this would only hold true if the repetitions per participant would be independent and not correlated (and then, one could theoretically also run 10 participants with 6 trials each, or 5 participants with 12 trials each). If they are not independent, this would lead to an artificial inflated sample size and Type I error. If the trials are not independent (please double check), I suggest either aggregating data on the participant level or to use alternative models that account for the within-subject correlation (as was done in other chapters).}{Data of the three confusion matrices have been aggregated on the participant level and analyzed using a Poisson regression.}
\figref{results/matching_confusion_matrix} shows the confusion matrix of the \level{Matching} task with the visual textures and the proportion of haptic texture selected in response, \ie the proportion of times the corresponding \response{Haptic Texture} was selected in response to the presentation of the corresponding \factor{Visual Texture}.
To determine which haptic textures were selected most often, the repetitions of the trials were first aggregated by counting the number of selections per participant for each (\factor{Visual Texture}, \response{Haptic Texture}) pair.
\comans{JG}{For the two-sample Chi-Squared tests in the matching task, the number of samples reported is 540 due to 20 participants conducting 3 trials for 9 textures each. However, this would only hold true if the repetitions per participant would be independent and not correlated (and then, one could theoretically also run 10 participants with 6 trials each, or 5 participants with 12 trials each). If they are not independent, this would lead to an artificial inflated sample size and Type I error. If the trials are not independent (please double check), I suggest either aggregating data on the participant level or to use alternative models that account for the within-subject correlation (as was done in other chapters).}{Data of the three confusion matrices have been aggregated on the participant level and analyzed using a Poisson regression.}
An \ANOVA based on a Poisson regression (no overdispersion was detected) indicated a statistically significant effect on the number of selections of the interaction \factor{Visual Texture} \x \response{Haptic Texture} (\chisqr{64}{180}{414}, \pinf{0.001}).
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using the Tukey's \HSD test then indicated there was statistically significant differences for the following visual textures:
\begin{itemize}