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

Remove comments

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2025-05-01 22:31:51 +02:00
parent 0202efeb06
commit e01e63d4cf
22 changed files with 19 additions and 244 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
4-manipulation/visual-hand/2-method.tex
View File

@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Participants also rated each visual hand augmentation individually on six questi
\item \response{Difficulty}: How difficult were the tasks?
\item \response{Fatigue}: How fatiguing (mentally and physically) were the tasks?
\item \response{Precision}: How precise were you in performing the tasks?
\item \response{Performance}: How successful were you in performing the tasks? %
\item \response{Performance}: How successful were you in performing the tasks?
\item \response{Efficiency}: How fast/efficient do you think you were in performing the tasks?
\item \response{Rating}: How much do you like each visual hand?
\end{itemize}

3
4-manipulation/visual-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -46,10 +46,7 @@ a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts and random slopes for \facto
and \factor{Target} (\anova{7}{3270}{4.1}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Occlusion} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Contour} (\pinf{0.001}), \level{Skeleton} (\pinf{0.001}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
%shorter with \level{Tips} than with \level{Occlusion} (\p{0.008}), \level{Contour} (\p{0.006}) and \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001});
%and shorter with \level{Skeleton} than with \level{Mesh} (\pinf{0.001}).
This result is an evidence of the lack of confidence of participants with no visual hand augmentation: they grasped the cube more to secure it.
%The \level{Mesh} rendering seemed to have provided the most confidence to participants, maybe because it was the closest to the real hand.
The \response{Grip Aperture} was longer on the right-front (\level{RF}) target volume, indicating a higher confidence, than on back and side targets (\level{R}, \level{RB}, \level{B}, \level{L}, \p{0.03}).

1
4-manipulation/visual-hand/4-discussion.tex
View File

@@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
We evaluated six visual hand augmentations, as described in \secref{hands}, displayed on top of the real hand, in two virtual object manipulation tasks in \AR.
During the \level{Push} task, the \level{Skeleton} hand rendering was the fastest (\figref{results/Push-CompletionTime}), as participants employed fewer and longer contacts to adjust the cube inside the target volume (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount} and \figref{results/Push-MeanContactTime}).
%Participants consistently used few and continuous contacts for all visual hand augmentations (\figref{results/Push-ContactsCount}), with only less than ten trials, carried out by two participants, quickly completed with multiple discrete touches.
However, during the \level{Grasp} task, despite no difference in \response{Completion Time}, providing no visible hand rendering (\level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings) led to more failed grasps or cube drops (\figref{results/Grasp-ContactsCount} and \figref{results/Grasp-MeanContactTime}).
Indeed, participants found the \level{None} and \level{Occlusion} renderings less effective (\figref{results/Ranks-Grasp}) and less precise (\figref{results_questions}).
To understand whether the participants' previous experience might have played a role, we also carried out an additional statistical analysis considering \VR experience as an additional between-subjects factor, \ie \VR novices vs. \VR experts (\enquote{I use it every week}, see \secref{participants}).

7
4-manipulation/visual-hand/5-conclusion.tex
View File

@@ -15,14 +15,7 @@ This is consistent with similar manipulation studies in \VR and in \VST-\AR setu
This study suggests that a \ThreeD visual hand augmentation is important in \OST-\AR when interacting with a virtual hand technique, particularly when it involves precise finger movements in relation to virtual content, \eg \ThreeD windows, buttons and sliders, or more complex tasks, such as stacking or assembly.
A minimal but detailed rendering of the virtual hand that does not hide the real hand, such as the skeleton rendering we evaluated, seems to be the best compromise between the richness and effectiveness of the feedback.
%In addition, users should be able to choose and adapt the visual hand augmentation to their preferences and needs.
In addition to visual augmentation of the hand, direct manipulation of virtual objects with the hand can also benefit from wearable haptic feedback.
In the next chapter, we explore two wearable vibrotactile contact feedback devices in a user study, located at four positionings on the hand so as to not cover the fingertips.
We evaluate their effect on user performance and experience in the same manipulation tasks as in this chapter, with the best visual hand augmentation found in this study.
%\noindentskip This work was published in Transactions on Haptics:
%Erwan Normand, Claudio Pacchierotti, Eric Marchand, and Maud Marchal.
%\enquote{Visuo-Haptic Rendering of the Hand during 3D Manipulation in Augmented Reality}.
%In: \textit{IEEE Transactions on Haptics}. 27.4 (2024), pp. 2481--2487.

6
4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex
View File

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
On the time to complete a trial,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{2341}{3.6}, \p{0.007}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{2341}{3.6}, \p{0.007}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
\level{Fingertips} was slower than \level{Proximal} (\percent{+11}, \p{0.01}) or \level{Opposite} (\percent{+12}, \p{0.03}).
There was no evidence of an advantage of \level{Proximal} or \level{Opposite} on \level{Nowhere}, nor a disadvantage of \level{Fingertips} on \level{Nowhere}.
@@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the targ
On the mean time spent on each contact,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects of
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means}) %
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Location-Overall-Means})
and of \factor{Hand} (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})
but not of the \factor{Positioning} \x \factor{Hand} interaction.
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\percent{-11}, \p{0.01}), or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{-15}, \pinf{0.001});
and shorter with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.005}), or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{-16}, \pinf{0.001}).

2
4-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-2-grasp.tex
View File

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ and \level{LF} was faster than \level{RB} (\p{0.03}).
On the number of contacts,
a \LMM \ANOVA with by-participant random intercepts indicated two statistically significant effects:
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}) %
\factor{Positioning} (\anova{4}{3990}{15.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Grasp-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means})
and \factor{Target} (\anova{3}{3990}{7.6}, \pinf{0.001}).
Fewer contacts were made with \level{Opposite} than with \level{Fingertips} (\percent{-26}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Proximal} (\percent{-17}, \pinf{0.001}), or \level{Wrist} (\percent{-12}, \p{0.002});
but more with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\percent{+13}, \p{0.002}) or \level{Nowhere} (\percent{+17}, \pinf{0.001}).