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

Fix ref to other sections

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-06-28 17:46:45 +02:00
parent 47c2008a1f
commit d9d6e5f474
2 changed files with 9 additions and 9 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/2-method.tex
View File

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ For this reason, it is often considered beneficial to move the point of applicat
This second experiment aims to evaluate whether a visuo-haptic hand rendering affects the performance and user experience of manipulation of virtual objects with bare hands in AR.
%
The chosen visuo-haptic hand renderings are the combination of the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment, \ie Skeleton and None, described in \secref{visual_hand:sec:hands}, with two contact vibration techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand.
The chosen visuo-haptic hand renderings are the combination of the two most representative visual hand renderings established in the first experiment, \ie Skeleton and None, described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}, with two contact vibration techniques provided at four delocalized positions on the hand.
\subsection{Vibrotactile Renderings}
@@ -96,12 +96,12 @@ Similarly, we designed the distance vibration technique (Dist) so that interpene
\subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}[Mean time spent on each contact.]
\end{subfigswide}
We considered the same two tasks as in Experiment \#1, described in \secref{tasks}, that we analyzed separately, considering four independent, within-subject variables:
We considered the same two tasks as in Experiment \#1, described in \secref[visual_hand]{tasks}, that we analyzed separately, considering four independent, within-subject variables:
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{{Vibrotactile Positioning}:} the five positionings for providing vibrotactile hand rendering of the virtual contacts, as described in \secref{positioning}.
\item \emph{Contact Vibration Technique}: the two contact vibration techniques, as described in \secref{technique}.
\item \emph{visual Hand rendering}: two visual hand renderings from the first experiment, Skeleton (Skel) and None, as described in \secref{hands}; we considered Skeleton as it performed the best in terms of performance and perceived effectiveness and None as reference.
\item \emph{visual Hand rendering}: two visual hand renderings from the first experiment, Skeleton (Skel) and None, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{hands}; we considered Skeleton as it performed the best in terms of performance and perceived effectiveness and None as reference.
\item \emph{Target}: we considered target volumes located at NW and SW during the Push task, and at NE, NW, SW, and SE during the Grasp task (see \figref{tasks}); we considered these targets because they presented different difficulties.
\end{itemize}
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ This design led to a total of 5 vibrotactile positionings \x 2 vibration contact
\subsection{Apparatus and Protocol}
\label{sec:apparatus}
Apparatus and protocol were very similar to the first experiment, as described in \secref{apparatus} and \secref{protocol}, respectively.
Apparatus and protocol were very similar to the first experiment, as described in \secref[visual_hand]{apparatus} and \secref[visual_hand]{protocol}, respectively.
%
We report here only the differences.
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ Preliminary tests confirmed this approach.
\subsection{Collected Data}
\label{sec:metrics}
During the experiment, we collected the same data as in the first experiment, see \secref{visual_hand:sec:metrics}.
During the experiment, we collected the same data as in the first experiment, see \secref[visual_hand]{metrics}.
%
At the end of the experiment, participants were asked if they recognized the different contact vibration techniques.
%