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

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}).