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

8
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -27,19 +27,19 @@ Consequently, the Fingertips positioning was slower (see \figref{results/Grasp-C
In both tasks, the Opposite positioning also seemed to be faster (see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) than having no vibrotactile hand rendering (Nowhere positioning).
%
However, participants also felt more workload (see \figref{results/questions}) with this positioning opposite to the site of the interaction.
However, participants also felt more workload (see \figref{questions}) with this positioning opposite to the site of the interaction.
%
This result might mean that participants focused more on learning to interpret these sensations, which led to better performance in the long run.
Overall, many participants appreciated the vibrotactile hand renderings, commenting that they made the tasks more realistic and easier.
%
However, the closer to the contact point, the better the vibrotactile rendering was perceived (see \figref{results/questions}).
However, the closer to the contact point, the better the vibrotactile rendering was perceived (see \figref{questions}).
%
This seemed inversely correlated with the performance, except for the Nowhere positioning, \eg both the Fingertips and Proximal positionings were perceived as more effective, useful, and realistic than the other positionings despite lower performance.
Considering the two tasks, no clear difference in performance or appreciation was found between the two contact vibration techniques.
%
While the majority of participants discriminated the two different techniques, only a minority identified them correctly (see \secref{results/technique_results}).
While the majority of participants discriminated the two different techniques, only a minority identified them correctly (see \secref{technique_results}).
%
It seemed that the Impact technique was sufficient to provide contact information compared to the Distance technique, which provided additional feedback on interpenetration, as reported by participants.
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ Participants felt that vibration bursts were sufficient (Impact technique) to co
%
Finally, it was interesting to note that the visual hand renderings was appreciated but felt less necessary when provided together with vibrotactile hand rendering, as the latter was deemed sufficient for acknowledging the contact.
As we already said in \secref{visual_hand:sec:discussion}, these results have some limitations as they address limited types of visuo-haptic renderings and manipulations were restricted to the thumb and index fingertips.
As we already said in \secref[visual_hand]{discussion}, these results have some limitations as they address limited types of visuo-haptic renderings and manipulations were restricted to the thumb and index fingertips.
%
While the simpler vibration technique (Impact technique) was sufficient to confirm contacts with the cube, richer vibrotactile renderings may be required for more complex interactions, such as collision or friction renderings between objects~\cite{kuchenbecker2006improving, pacchierotti2015cutaneous} or texture rendering~\cite{culbertson2014one, asano2015vibrotactile}.
%