Style

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

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ No statistical significant effect of \textit{Visual Texture} was found (\anova{8
 %
 Almost all the texture pairs in the \textit{Haptic Textures Ranking} results were statistically significantly different (\chisqr{8}{20}{146}, \pinf{0.001}; \pinf{0.05} for each comparison), except between (Metal Mesh, Sandpaper~100), (Cork, Brick~2), (Cork, Sandpaper~320) (Plastic Mesh~1, Velcro Hooks), and (Plastic Mesh~1, Terra Cotta).
 %
-Average Kendall's Tau correlations between the participants indicated a very high consensus (\kendall{0.82}, \ci{0.81}{0.84}) showing that participants perceived similarly the roughness of the haptic textures.
+Average Kendall's Tau correlations between the participants indicated a high consensus (\kendall{0.82}, \ci{0.81}{0.84}) showing that participants perceived similarly the roughness of the haptic textures.
 %
 Most of the texture pairs in the \textit{Visual Textures Ranking} results were also statistically significantly different (\chisqr{8}{20}{119}, \pinf{0.001}; \pinf{0.05} for each comparison), except for the following groups: \{Metal Mesh, Cork, Plastic Mesh~1\}; \{Sandpaper~100, Brick~2, Plastic Mesh~1, Velcro Hooks\}; \{Cork, Velcro Hooks\}; \{Sandpaper~320, Terra Cotta\}; and \{Sandpaper~320, Coffee Filter\}.
 %
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Even though the consensus was high (\kendall{0.61}, \ci{0.58}{0.64}), the roughn
 %
 Also, almost all the texture pairs in the \textit{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking} results were statistically significantly different (\chisqr{8}{20}{140}, \pinf{0.001}; \pinf{0.05} for each comparison), except for the following groups: \{Sandpaper~100, Cork\}; \{Cork, Brick~2\}; and \{Plastic Mesh~1, Velcro Hooks, Sandpaper~320\}.
 %
-The consensus between the participants was also very high \kendall{0.77}, \ci{0.74}{0.79}.
+The consensus between the participants was also high \kendall{0.77}, \ci{0.74}{0.79}.
 %
 Finally, calculating the similarity of the three rankings of each participant, the \textit{Visuo-Haptic Textures Ranking} was on average highly similar to the \textit{Haptic Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.79}, \ci{0.72}{0.86}) and moderately to the \textit{Visual Textures Ranking} (\kendall{0.48}, \ci{0.39}{0.56}).
 %

2-perception/vhar-textures/4-discussion.tex

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ The rankings (\figref{results_matching_ranking}, right) confirmed that the parti
 %
 These results made it possible to identify and name groups of textures in the form of clusters, and to construct confusion matrices between these clusters and between visual texture ranks with haptic clusters, showing that participants consistently identified and matched haptic and visual textures (\figref{results_clusters}).
 %
-Interestingly, 30\% of the matching variance was captured with a second dimension, opposing the roughest textures (Metal Mesh, Sandpaper~100), and to a lesser extent the smoothest (Coffee Filter, Sandpaper~320), with all other textures.
+30\% of the matching variance was also captured with a second dimension, opposing the roughest textures (Metal Mesh, Sandpaper~100), and to a lesser extent the smoothest (Coffee Filter, Sandpaper~320), with all other textures.
 %
 One hypothesis is that this dimension could be the perceived stiffness of the textures, with Metal Mesh and smooth textures appearing stiffer than the other textures, whose granularity could have been perceived as bumps on the surface that could deform under finger pressure.
 %