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

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}).