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

Fix vh-hand chapter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Erwan Normand
2024-09-25 09:00:03 +02:00
parent 5ea0d208ae
commit e80908b7f5
7 changed files with 104 additions and 113 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

18
3-manipulation/visuo-haptic-hand/3-1-push.tex
View File

@@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ On the time to complete a trial, there were two statistically significant effect
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{3.8}, \p{0.004}, see \figref{results/Push-CompletionTime-Location-Overall-Means}) %
and Target (\anova{1}{1990}{3.9}, \p{0.05}).
%
Fingertips was slower than Proximal (\qty{+11}{\%}, \p{0.01}) or Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
\level{Fingertips} was slower than \level{Proximal} (\qty{+11}{\%}, \p{0.01}) or \level{Opposite} (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
There was no evidence of an advantage of Proximal or Opposite on No Vibrations, nor a disadvantage of Fingertips on No Vibrations.
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}.
%
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with Proximal and Opposite.
Yet, there was a tendency of faster trials with \level{Proximal} and \level{Opposite}.
%
The NW target volume was also faster than the SW (\p{0.05}).
The \level{LB} target volume was also faster than the \level{LF} (\p{0.05}).
\subsubsection{Contacts}
\label{push_contacts_count}
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The NW target volume was also faster than the SW (\p{0.05}).
On the number of contacts, there was one statistically significant effect of %
Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{2.4}, \p{0.05}, see \figref{results/Push-Contacts-Location-Overall-Means}).
%
More contacts were made with Fingertips than with Opposite (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
More contacts were made with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Opposite} (\qty{+12}{\%}, \p{0.03}).
%
This could indicate more difficulties to adjust the virtual cube inside the target volume.
@@ -34,12 +34,12 @@ Positioning (\anova{4}{1990}{11.5}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimeP
and of Hand (\anova{1}{1990}{16.1}, \pinf{0.001}, see \figref{results/Push-TimePerContact-Hand-Overall-Means})%
but not of the Positioning \x Hand interaction.
%
It was shorter with Fingertips than with Wrist (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001});
It was shorter with \level{Fingertips} than with \level{Wrist} (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\qty{-11}{\%}, \p{0.01}), or NoVi (\qty{-15}{\%}, \pinf{0.001});
%
and shorter with Proximal than with Wrist (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), Opposite (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.005}), or No Vibrations (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
and shorter with \level{Proximal} than with \level{Wrist} (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}), \level{Opposite} (\qty{-12}{\%}, \p{0.005}), or \level{Nowhere} (\qty{-16}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the Fingertips and Proximal positionings.
This showed different strategies to adjust the cube inside the target volume, with faster repeated pushes with the \level{Fingertips} and \level{Proximal} positionings.
%
It was also shorter with None than with Skeleton (\qty{-9}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
It was also shorter with \level{None} than with \level{Skeleton} (\qty{-9}{\%}, \pinf{0.001}).
%
This indicates, as for the first experiment, more confidence with a visual hand rendering.