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. 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} \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.] \subfig[0.24]{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}[Mean time spent on each contact.]
\end{subfigswide} \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} \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{{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{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. \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} \end{itemize}
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ This design led to a total of 5 vibrotactile positionings \x 2 vibration contact
\subsection{Apparatus and Protocol} \subsection{Apparatus and Protocol}
\label{sec:apparatus} \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. We report here only the differences.
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ Preliminary tests confirmed this approach.
\subsection{Collected Data} \subsection{Collected Data}
\label{sec:metrics} \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. At the end of the experiment, participants were asked if they recognized the different contact vibration techniques.
% %

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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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}. 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}.
% %